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: klingon_zps7e68578a.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!
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: