God is "beyond" science!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
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
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
God is "beyond" science! - GodlessnFree - 29-12-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 29-12-2012, 07:02 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 30-12-2012, 01:06 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 30-12-2012, 02:03 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - ddrew - 30-12-2012, 02:13 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 02:11 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 30-12-2012, 02:15 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 30-12-2012, 02:34 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - morondog - 30-12-2012, 02:52 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 30-12-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 11:24 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - morondog - 30-12-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 30-12-2012, 01:31 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Impulse - 30-12-2012, 01:25 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 03:09 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 30-12-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 03:16 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 30-12-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 30-12-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 30-12-2012, 03:27 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 30-12-2012, 03:41 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 30-12-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 30-12-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 30-12-2012, 04:34 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 30-12-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 07:27 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 30-12-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - amyb - 30-12-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 30-12-2012, 07:56 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 30-12-2012, 08:18 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 30-12-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 30-12-2012, 09:19 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 31-12-2012 12:50 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 31-12-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 31-12-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - kingschosen - 31-12-2012, 02:05 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - morondog - 31-12-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Diablo - 31-12-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 31-12-2012, 07:46 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 31-12-2012, 08:02 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - amyb - 31-12-2012, 11:49 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 01:54 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - amyb - 01-01-2013, 03:02 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 01-01-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Vosur - 01-01-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 01-01-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 01-01-2013, 10:09 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 02-01-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Vosur - 01-01-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - amyb - 01-01-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 01-01-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 01-01-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 01-01-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Rahn127 - 01-01-2013, 09:34 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 01-01-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 01-01-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 01-01-2013, 07:29 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Chas - 01-01-2013, 07:39 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - BioPsychMS - 01-01-2013, 11:28 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - DLJ - 02-01-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 02-01-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 05-01-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Denicio - 04-01-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Luminon - 04-01-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 05-01-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 06-01-2013, 10:57 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 07-01-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 07-01-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 07-01-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 07-01-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 08-01-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 08-01-2013, 08:40 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 08-01-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 09-01-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - fstratzero - 09-01-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - sadetec - 09-01-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 09-01-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Starcrash - 09-01-2013, 07:25 PM
Re: God is "beyond" science! - Phaedrus - 09-01-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science! - Ghost - 09-01-2013, 10:49 PM
Forum Jump: