God is "beyond" science!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2012, 07:27 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Hey, fst.

Yeah, if you think I'm talking about David Copperfield then you're in the wrong conversation.

You say that science will, but can you explain how? I, however, can explain why it will not. Because magic is inherently non-empirical. Science cannot make any comment on the non-empirical. Case closed.

Hey, bio.

Thanks for the explanation. It was very clear and very informative.

"Residue" seems a little spurious to me. What does that actually mean?

For real, that femto-photography stuff is mad crazy awesome. But there's an issue. It is a new technology that is better at doing the exact same thing that every single scientific experiment, calculation and piece of equipment has done since the dawn of science; observe the empirical. So I have no doubt that we'll have better technology and better gadgets in the future. But it's not a question of better. It's a question of limitation. No scientific experiment, calculation or piece of equipment has ever made a single statement about the non-empirical. Because it cannot. Not ever.

Hey, Phaedrus.

I'll have you know, good sir, that I have had sex with several very attractive oscilloscopes... wait... that really should have stayed a secret... yikes...

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2012, 07:56 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Special pleading, Ghost.


"It's exempt from the rules because I say so!"

Sorry, we haven't found anything exempt from these rules yet, so far every magical phenomenon science has investigated so far has been investigated pretty much successfully, and by the way, so far none of them have been magic.

Just FYI.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
30-12-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(30-12-2012 07:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, bio.

Thanks for the explanation. It was very clear and very informative.

"Residue" seems a little spurious to me. What does that actually mean?

For real, that femto-photography stuff is mad crazy awesome. But there's an issue. It is a new technology that is better at doing the exact same thing that every single scientific experiment, calculation and piece of equipment has done since the dawn of science; observe the empirical. So I have no doubt that we'll have better technology and better gadgets in the future. But it's not a question of better. It's a question of limitation. No scientific experiment, calculation or piece of equipment has ever made a single statement about the non-empirical. Because it cannot. Not ever.
Hey Ghost.

Don't want to come off as spurious. I simply meant residue in the sense that a force that is acting on a physical system should leave traces of its presence (e.g. scarring, cellular regeneration, cellular disruption...etc.). Those traces, ideally, will lead us back to the source.

Yes, of course, I agree that science and technology has nothing to say about the non-empirical. My point is essentially that what is non-empirical at the moment could be empirical at a later time, provided there is a sufficient operational definition. For example, disease and its causes could have been considered non-empirical in the past, especially if you thought that they were caused by the supernatural. Along comes germ-theory and we have an empirical question and with that question comes technology that allowed us to observe micro organisms directly. Do I think that there are some questions that may always remain non-empirical? Sure. However, I also think that the better our questions get, the better our definitions get and the better our technology gets there becomes fewer and fewer things that can't be an empirical question. Especially as it relates to a "GOD" intervening in a physical world.

Steve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BioPsychMS's post
30-12-2012, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2012 08:23 PM by Ghost.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Hey, Phaedrus.

Uhhhh, how the fuck do you get special pleading from me fucking an oscilloscope?????

I agree. Those magical phenomenon that are not magical are not magical.

This does not take away from what I've been saying in the least. If something is not magical, if it's material, then yeah, science can talk about it. When have I said otherwise?

The issue is that if something were magical, science would be mum. Nothing special about it. If you think I'm the only person on the planet that thinks that science can only comment on empirical evidence, well, what can I say?

I have laid out a very careful framework for why it cannot comment on the empirical. How am I the one saying it is so because I say so?

ON EDIT:

Hey, Bio.

You've missed a step. The forces of the universe can be measured empirically. They all function within very specific parameters. If God snaps his fingers, there is no force to trace back to. He didn't use gravity, or the weak force, or joules or anything material. He just did it. The only thing traces could lead us back to is incomprehensible nonsense.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about things we don't know about yet. If it's material, it's material, whether we know about it or not. I'm not talking about mistaking something material for being something magical. I'm talking about things that are magical. Period. The magical is never empirical. Not ever. Namean?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2012, 08:28 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Lies. "God is beyond science" translates into "do what we say and don't question it." Ask the w... aunt to explain Job, wanna talk about "god being beyond science."

And!

Fucking Ghost... Dodgy

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(30-12-2012 08:18 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bio.

You've missed a step. The forces of the universe can be measured empirically. They all function within very specific parameters. If God snaps his fingers, there is no force to trace back to. He didn't use gravity, or the weak force, or joules or anything material. He just did it. The only thing traces could lead us back to is incomprehensible nonsense.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about things we don't know about yet. If it's material, it's material, whether we know about it or not. I'm not talking about mistaking something material for being something magical. I'm talking about things that are magical. Period. The magical is never empirical. Not ever. Namean?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Hey Ghost.

Traces would provide evidence that SOMETHING happened, not necessarily what caused them, but evidence nonetheless. That aside, I think we are at an impasse because there is no "magical" IMO. There are illusions performed by magicians and there are things we don't understand but that in no way makes them magical therefore knowable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2012, 09:19 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
The special pleading comes in that you are creating your own special category of phenomenon that cannot be proven or disproven in any way we know of, which is magically immune to empirical study "because". That's special pleading. Everything that's ever been put to the test has turned out to be empirically testable eventually. You are declaring that your phenomena are not and never can be empirically tested on the basis of...

You can come at it from another direction, as it being that if this special category were real and could not be empirically tested then we would have no way of knowing whether it existed or not. Sure. But ol' William's razor says that's multiplying entities without necessity. If the world can be explained without supernatural phenomena, then either supernatural phenomena don't exist, or else their effects are so meagre and unmeasurable that they might as well not exist.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
30-12-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(30-12-2012 07:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Because magic is inherently non-empirical. Science cannot make any comment on the non-empirical. Case closed.
The problem with this is that it assumes a belief in magic, and not everyone believes in magic (usually due to lack of evidence for it).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2012, 12:50 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Hey, Cantor.

Who's fucking me? Is that why I have trouble sitting down?

I grant you that people can take this sort of thing and use it as a support for unquestioned authority. Absolutely. Not only can people do that, people HAVE done that. But that doesn't take away from the reality. We can't deny reality just because we don't like her pitfalls. That is as bad a thing, if not worse.

Hey, Bio.

Yeah, that's what I said. The fact that a phenomenon occurs is not necessarily controversial. How it occurred is.

We're not at an impasse. I have no idea whether or not there is magic. How could I? It can't be tested. I'm just making the point.

And once again, I'm not talking about Davids, either Copperfield or Blaine. Illusions are illusions, not magic. If someone makes a claim that something is magic and we prove that it isn't, then nowhere in there was there ever actual magic. I'm only talking about the limitations of science to comment on honest to goodness magic; were such a thing to exist.

Hey, Amy.

It makes no such assumption. In order for magic to be magic and not just some nifty parlour trick, it has to have certain properties. That's not saying that it exists, it's saying that if it does, then it is X. Magic, true magic, whether it exists or not, is by definition non-natural and non-empirical. If it is either of those things, then it isn't magic. I have no idea if magic exists and neither does anyone else. And that's the whole point.

Hey, Phaedrus.

I have done no such thing. You accuse me of something that is demonstrably false. I would appreciate a retraction.

Science cannot comment on anything non-empirical. That's a fact. A straight up fact. An irrefutable fact. If you have some evidence that speaks to the contrary, I'd love to hear it, but as far as I know it doesn't exist. There's no special pleading here. This is a long-established limitation of science. I have created nothing.

If the supernatural leaves empirical data, then it is not supernatural. The only thing that leaves empirical data is the material; the interactions of matter and energy as governed by the natural forces of the universe.

If the supernatural leaves no empirical evidence (which is a prerequisite for it BEING supernatural) and science cannot comment on anything non-empirical, then science cannot comment on the supernatural.

I have made no special pleading. I have invented nothing. This isn't even my idea. This is a long-established idea.

Not only this, but I have stated this CLEARLY many times before, so I find your assertion that I have never supported my opinion, that all I've ever said is "because", offensive.

Now lets get specific.

Phenomena occur. That's a fact. The question of importance here is, is a given phenomenon natural (ie, material) or is a given phenomenon supernatural (ie, above or beyond the natural, non-material)?

Science has clearly established one thing. Most of the phenomenon we've investigated are natural. Science does this by examining and testing empirical data.

Many times, people have made the claim that a phenomenon is supernatural and science has torn that bullshit claim apart and demonstrated that the phenomenon was in fact natural. Ie, David Copperfield never made the Statue of Liberty disappear, it was just a trick.

Say I see what I think is a ghost. A specter. A free-floating spirit. That is a phenomenon. I have experienced it. Now the question is, was that phenomenon natural or supernatural? THIS is where science's limitation is felt. If it was just old man Trewilliger using a projector to try and scare me away and Scooby Doo finds it and he's like, "It would have worked too if it wasn't for these pesky kids," then poof, empirical evidence discovered, question solved. Because all natural phenomenon leave empirical evidence. But if it's an actual ghost, like no bullshit, the soul of some dude returned from the dead, then it will leave no empirical evidence. Period. You can test it all you want. You can run any experiment, perform any calculation, scan with any piece of equipment and you're gonna come up empty because there is no data. So how can science comment on it?

It cannot. And I agree, we have no way of knowing whether or not the phenomenon was in fact supernatural because we can't test it scientifically. But anyone who experienced the phenomenon knows that something occurred.

Even if science could comment on the supernatural, science doesn't want to comment on the supernatural. This is because of methodological naturalism:

Quote:Its main point is that a difference between natural and supernatural explanations should be made, and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural explanations.[30] That the restriction is merely methodological (rather than ontological) means that science should not consider supernatural explanations itself, but should not claim them to be wrong either. Instead, supernatural explanations should be left a matter of personal belief outside the scope of science. Methodological naturalism maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating explanations for observable phenomena. The absence of these standards, arguments from authority, biased observational studies and other common fallacies are frequently cited by supporters of methodological naturalism as criteria for the dubious claims they criticize not to be true science.
-Source: Wikipedia article - Science

Occam's razor is another matter entirely. Occam's razor works in service of methodological naturalism; the working assumption that naturalism is a correct assumption and that every single phenomenon has a material cause. If every phenomenon has a material cause, then sure, cut out all the angels and miracles and Gods and all the rest. But that has nothing to do with science's inability to comment on a genuinely supernatural phenomenon.

And once again, I'm not suggesting that the supernatural actually exists. I am an Agnostic and I know that the supernatural is indemonstrable, so I have no choice but to reserve my judgement. All I am saying is that the awesome capacity of science is known to us, as are its limitations. If there are supernatural phenomenon in the universe, science is not the way we will be able to tell.

Whether or not the supernatural exists, whether or not God exists; these are metaphysical questions, not scientific ones, and I have no answer for them.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(31-12-2012 12:50 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Phaedrus.

I have done no such thing. You accuse me of something that is demonstrably false. I would appreciate a retraction.

Nope.

Quote:Science cannot comment on anything non-empirical. That's a fact. A straight up fact. An irrefutable fact. If you have some evidence that speaks to the contrary, I'd love to hear it, but as far as I know it doesn't exist. There's no special pleading here. This is a long-established limitation of science. I have created nothing.

If the supernatural leaves empirical data, then it is not supernatural. The only thing that leaves empirical data is the material; the interactions of matter and energy as governed by the natural forces of the universe.

If the supernatural leaves no empirical evidence (which is a prerequisite for it BEING supernatural) and science cannot comment on anything non-empirical, then science cannot comment on the supernatural.

I have made no special pleading. I have invented nothing. This isn't even my idea. This is a long-established idea.

Not only this, but I have stated this CLEARLY many times before, so I find your assertion that I have never supported my opinion, that all I've ever said is "because", offensive.


You are factually incorrect. Of course you did not invent the notion of the supernatural, thus you lack even the status of having invented something new. I meant you "invented" the supernatural within the context of this debate. You invented the supernatural from whole cloth within this debate by claiming it exists, then declaring it to be completely undetectable, untestable, and unprovable. You have "supported" your opinion by saying the same thing over and over, that this category you're glomming on is immune to all rational inquiry and empirical investigation by definition. You haven't provided any reason why it should be so, you've simply declared that it is. Examine your own arguments and you'll find that you're talking in circles. "The supernatural is not empirically testable. It's not empirically testable because it leaves no evidence, and it leaves no evidence because it is not empirically testable."


Here's the problem, Ghost


Without being able to empirically test it, there is no way to distinguish your "supernatural" phenomena from hallucination or delusion.

That's all it comes down to.

And if I can't distinguish your special non-testable magic class of reality from you being a crazy person, I'm going to choose the least hypothesis, mkay?



By the way, Okham's razor does not favor naturalism inherently, Okham originally proposed it as an argument for god; why suppose the existence of all these fairies and pixies and trolls and goblins when everything can be explained solely by god? Unfortunately for Okham, it turns out we can PROVE things exist, like atoms and quarks, and these things reduce god's domain more and more with each experiment. So the Razor supports naturalism not because it was designed to, but more because science and rational inquiry are, you know, right.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: