God is "beyond" science!

[Ghost]

Phaedrus.

Quote:You invented the supernatural from whole cloth within this debate by claiming it exists...

In fact I have explicitly, repeatedly, stated that I do not claim that the supernatural exists. Your statement demonstrates that you have not understood a single thing I have said.

Quote:Of course you did not invent the notion of the supernatural...

Again, I was not talking about inventing the supernatural. I have no idea what it is that you are responding to, but you are most certainly not responding to my argument.

Quote:You haven't provided any reason why it should be so...

I have done so ad nauseum. It's clear to me that further energy will be wasted.

Quote: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.

How is that a problem? Where have I said anything that even conceivably challenges that statement? Again, you utterly misunderstand everything that I have said. Had you taken the time to understand my argument you would know that your statement and my argument are entirely compatible.

I'm not even bothering with the Occam's razor thing. That's the worst case of contrarianism I have ever seen in my entire life.

[kingschosen]

Faith, by definition isn't knowledge. Faith can't be proved or disproved.

God is metaphysical.

The belief in God isn't beyond science... it isn't science. It's like saying a shoe is beyond green paint. They can't be compared.

Science deals with the physical. Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical.

[cheapthrillseaker]

(31-12-2012 02:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Faith, by definition isn't knowledge. Faith can't be proved or disproved.

God is metaphysical.

The belief in God isn't beyond science... it isn't science.

Science deals with physical. Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical.

Pseudoscience deals with supernatural. It makes for great entertainment.

To quote my Catholic Lawyer buddy Frank, "Church has been the best entertainment I've had in years".

[morondog]

(31-12-2012 02:20 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  To quote my Catholic Lawyer buddy Frank, "Church has been the best entertainment I've had in years".

He needs to get out more...

[cheapthrillseaker]

(31-12-2012 02:23 PM)morondog Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 02:20 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  To quote my Catholic Lawyer buddy Frank, "Church has been the best entertainment I've had in years".

He needs to get out more...

He was a divorce lawyer. And very sarcastic.

[Diablo]

(29-12-2012 06:46 PM)GodlessnFree Wrote:  I am assuming that the people reading this are smart enough to know that the desert myths are false. I usually have an easy time debunking the anecdotes/ logical fallacies that theists use to prove the existence of a god/ their god.

However, yesterday I was having a conversation with my aunt who unfortunately happens to be a nun and I asked her for evidence for her god. She replied that she didn't need any evidence because it was not a "scientific claim" but rather a claim that is beyond the "realm of science". I asked her then what was her reason(s) to believe in her god, her reply was "faith".

According to her, faith is simply "the way to know the reality beyond science". Then, she said that I was closed to faith because I had been absorbed by the deceit of "scientism". She also claimed that she couldn't explain me her reasons for believing in her god because since I believed in "scientism" my mind was "closed to anything beyond science".

That seems patent bullshit.



This isn't the first time I find this ridiculous argument. Popular christians of different intellectual capabilities ranging from John Lennox to VenomfangX always try to "debunk" atheism by equating it with "Scientism". Francis Collins said that scientism was a sign of close-mindedness.

Lennox illustrated his criticism of scientism with a metaphor: Aunt Matilda's Cake. The metaphor is often praised among faitheads, I suggest you watch it in case you haven't done so yet. In a nutshell, the metaphor of the cake explains that science can allow us to know the physical properties of the cake (density, weight, volume, material composition) but not the metaphysical properties of it (purpose, maker, proper use). Then the cake is compared to the universe and Lennox claims that the universe also has metaphysical properties that are beyond science and require another way of reasoning in order to be known.


Well, enough of my rambling, I wanted to hear opinions/objections towards this high-sounding but really fallacious argument of "The Limits of Science". The best I got yet is AronRa's brilliant response: "Science may not have all the answers, but some answers are better than no answers at all, and that's what religion gives you".

Cheers.

The statement that god is beyond science is absolutely true. Assuming of course you already believe he exist. Thus the statement doesn't provide any additional information, and can't be construed as an argument. It is at best bashing of science's inability to explain the metaphysical.

[Ghost]

Hey, Diablo.

That's an interesting semantical argument that I hadn't considered before. I suppose then that one would have to say either "the God question is beyond science" or "science cannot comment on the God question."

I wouldn't say that it's an attempt to bash science on my part. I'm sure it is on some people's part. Some people will scrounge for any argument and use it to disniss all of science; and it's usually the flimsiest of arguments. Like "science can't comment on the metaphisical so science is utterly without value." Total horseshit. On my part anyway, I'm just acknowledging a limit of science, not because I want it to be there, but because it's the only intellectually honest thing to do. And I certainly don't hold it against science.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

[Chas]

(31-12-2012 07:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Diablo.

That's an interesting semantical argument that I hadn't considered before. I suppose then that one would have to say either "the God question is beyond science" or "science cannot comment on the God question."

I wouldn't say that it's an attempt to bash science on my part. I'm sure it is on some people's part. Some people will scrounge for any argument and use it to disniss all of science; and it's usually the flimsiest of arguments. Like "science can't comment on the metaphisical so science is utterly without value." Total horseshit. On my part anyway, I'm just acknowledging a limit of science, not because I want it to be there, but because it's the only intellectually honest thing to do. And I certainly don't hold it against science.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

But it's only beyond science because it's been defined as beyond science.

[amyb]

(31-12-2012 08:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it's only beyond science because it's been defined as beyond science.

This. And there are still scientific frontiers to be explored, so how can people know it will remain beyond science forever? Maybe someday, there will be an actual Science of Woo.

In my opinion, science can be used quite well to comment on the supernatural already, that is, to provide evidence it doesn't exist (and/or lack of evidence that it does exist). Most people could accept the idea that we don't believe in unicorns because scientists haven't found any living or fossilized ones, or other evidence that they ever existed, but somehow they move the goalposts when it becomes gods instead of unicorns, and I would imagine that has something to do with emotional reasons.

[Ghost]

Hey, Chas.

OK. What are you talking about? Because to me it sounds like you think it obliterates the entire argument, and I don't even know what you mean.

I mean, we DO things with science. I can define speed as beyond science, but the moment you hit my car with the radar gun, that one's out the window because measuring velocity is NOT beyond science. The whole God thing isn't beyond science because people arbitrarilly decided it is. It's beyond science because science can't DO anything with it.

Here's the million dollar question. If science CAN comment on the God question, then why the fuck HASN'T it? With all the tension between Athesists and Theists, creationists and Darwinists, wouldn't it just be simple for science to weigh in officially on the matter? But it hasn't. Is that just the biggest oversight in ever, or is it because it can't?

Hey, Amy.

Science will continue to be excellent at exploring scientific frontiers. Anyone who argues against that is a fool. But I don't see what that has to do with this argument.

I can say, "maybe one day science will give me a blowjob," and the whole "one day" thing has this charming romantic appeal. But science doesn't do that sort of thing. So I can wait for someday, but it aint gonna come. So we can say, "maybe someday science will be able to comment on the metaphysical," but it's nothing more than charming romanticism if that's just plain something that science doesn't do.

In the meantime, all you're really saying is that science DOESN'T do it today. Which is the argument.

As for unicorns, they coild accept there are none because science hasn't uncovered them, but that's not, and doesn't even aproach, scientific truth. I mean, it is what it is, but it aint science and shouldn't be put in the same category as "people accept gravity, evolution and chemistry."

I don't think that people are moving the goal posts. People believe in SOME things. No one believes in everything. Except the credulous and feebleminded. Possibly Rain Man. But if someone believes in God, they don't actually have an obligation to believe in unicorns.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt