Hasn't god been disproved?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2012, 05:48 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
If you believe that God has a nature, and that God always behaves according to his nature then you are a believer in naturalism. The only kind of supernatural being is one that does not have a nature that it consistently complies with. Science can't disprove such things, in the sense that they have no definition or consistent properties that can be tested. However, science can address those things that do have natures - like the gods of the major religions.

I think it's easy to get confused and start to talk about "the universe" or things described by known physics as the only things that science can reason about. However, science can also discover new physics. New branches of science can be opened up. To draw this magic line where "natural" things are the things we see and touch while "supernatural" things are magic and fairies and gods is disingenuous. The line should properly be drawn with things that have a nature that they consistently comply with on one side and things that have no definable properties on the other side. It is possible to prove or disprove stated properties of natural beings such as fairies and gods. It's possible to look in fairy rings. It's possible to statistically analyse recovery rates from cancer. It's not possible to test properties of beings that have no interaction with our universe or our technology, but it seems hardly worth speculating about such beings given our limited state of development.

I guess my central point is that when people describe their gods as being supernatural, I would seriously question any such statement. Does the god have a nature that is consistently complies with? What predictions can we comfortably make about reality as a result of those predictions? Does prayer work? Does geological and fossil evidence support the god's related creation myth?

To me, every religion on earth posits a natural, rather than a supernatural deity or related concept. If their gods did not behave predictably then their brains would break. In locking their gods down in this way they define properties that can be disproved. When we went to the top of mount Olympus we didn't find a city. When we explored the oceans King Neptune was nought to be found. Things that have natures can be tested by science. It's only things that have no definable properties that can properly evade our grasp.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
Ghost:
Quote: You were saying?
I was saying exactly what I was saying. You misinterpreted that as me positing that you claim the supernatural to be provable/disprovable. I was doing no such thing. Given the whole context of my comment, I was pointing out the flaw in your introduction of the term "supernatural". You cannot posit that 2+2=5 IS A SUPERNATURAL event if it does happen to occur. There are an infinite amount of possibilities, a NATURAL explanation being one of them. How can you possibly jump to the single conclusion that 2+2=5 would be a "supernatural" event?

Quote: In the hypothetical, 2+2=5 WAS a supernatural event. End of story.
No, that isn't the "end of story". It's the end of YOUR story. And you suggest that naturalists have a closed mind??? Prove to me that even hypothetically it was a supernatural event? This is true philosophy here. Bunch of hypothetical scenarios with no foundation in the real world that for the most part can never be proven/disproven. This is where science and philosophy part my friend. Hence, SCIENCE IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

I already commented that science WAS definitely a philosophy, but is no longer.


Quote: That's a logical train wreck.
Rather than claim that something is a "logical train wreck", why don't you enlighten me as to why you believe that to be so? Because I find your reasoning that science is a philosophy to be just the same.

If there is no alternative explanation in science other than naturalism, then what could you possibly philosophize about? Philosophy deals with that which cannot be explained by empirical evidence. In science, EVERYTHING can be explained by such. There are only those matters which cannot CURRENTLY be explained by empirical evidence. Of course unless anything "supernatural" is ever proved e.g., Jesus saying hello to the world and showing himself in a piece of every single toast at the exact same time.

These are just two articles I found after a quick search. I assure you and give you my word (FWIW) that this is my first time seeing these as well.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2766-...philosophy

http://www.science20.com/rationally_spea...philosophy


What's interesting to me is that it seems the people trying to call science a philosophy are philosophers, spiritualists, agnostics like yourself, and religious. That's just my humble observation though as you definitely aren't the first to try and make this claim.

Since you opened the floodgate for insults, "That's a logical trainwreck", I am going to call you out for being the worst type of Agnostic... A LAZY ONE.

This "I don't know" attitude is disgusting when trying to debate logic. Your 2+2=5 IS SUPERNATURAL statement shows your lazy intellectual attitude towards the subject. I hope you know that quantum physics allows for very strange math like infinity - infinity. If you would have introduced that ridiculous math just a few decades ago, you probably would have been able to get away with your 2+2=5 comment.

Let's just agree to agree that everything is a philosophy and that supernatural events can very well occur so we should never rule it out even though not one iota of evidence has ever surfaced in favor of it. We can all be "I don't know" agnostics continually philosophizing about what could be and just brushing science off as another school of thought in the subject.

Weeee!!! This is fun. 2+2=Flying Spaghetti Monster.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?



"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
Richard Dawkins


"Do not pray in my school, and I will not think in your church."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like IGotCoolSocks's post
23-04-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
Noah.

Wow. Really? I presented a hypothetical situation and you're telling me... I'm literally having a hard time grasping your issue because it's so cockamamie that I'm just stunned.

Clearly you're not reading a single thing I've written.

Your calling me closed minded is just laughable. For real, dude. I'm not even angry. It's just so bloody ridiculous that I'm struggling to figure out how to explain why its so... silly... and still advance the conversation.

I said that for the sake of the hypothetical that the example simply was a supernatural phenomenon and you're trying to tell me that I'm closed minded because I'm not considering other possibilities. That's just beyond the pale. That's like if I said, for the sake of the hypothetical there's a guy named Bill and you called me closed minded because I wasn't considering the fact that he had a different name. I just... I'm at a loss.

You asked me to prove something that I have said, several times, is unprovable. How is that a reasonable request? You're also asking me to prove a hypothetical analogy that was used for illustration only. If it was an event that had occurred, ok, sure, ask away, but it's an utter fabrication. How do I respond to that?

I never said that science is a philosophy. I said that methodological naturalism is for no reason other than it cannot be empirically proven to be true. I've even said that if anyone can show me some proof, some experiment that proved it, something peer reviewed, something with some shred of scientific merit, that I'd happily accept it. But it doesn't exist.

..........Ugh, you know what. I was responding to your post as I was reading it, but I just read ahead. You are not engaging with what I'm saying. You're assuming that I'm parroting something you've encountered somewhere else and you're talking at me with talking points. You can't tell the difference between a harsh critique of an idea and an ad hominem attack. So since you have sum zero to add to this conversation and since on top of everything you're demonstrating prejudice towards Agnostics, I'm done with you.

Hey, Hafnof.

I wasn't going to respond because I don't have much to add, but since I'm here, I might as well.

I just straight up don't understand what you're saying. As a statement on its own, it's confusing to me. As a response to what I've been saying, it makes no sense. I'm not trying to say that what you're saying is devoid of merit, just that I'm not following you.

I don't disagree that new branches of science can open up. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm fully aware of the fact that there are things, countless things, that science HASN'T commented on yet. There's all manner of phenomenon that might seem supernatural, or paranormal, or whatever, that later on will prove to simply be natural phenomenon. I'm on board. But that's not at all what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the bias that leads people to believe/exclaim the absolute statement, everything has a material explanation. Sure, there's things that point to that and science does an excellent job of shedding light on the things that do have a material explanation, but there is no proof, there is no empirical evidence that proves that everything has a material explanation. Methodological naturalism says, "Well, we're going to proceed as if it is true." And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. What I am saying is that it's true that methodologically science operates with the assumption that everything has a material explanation even though that's impossible to prove. That's a limit, not a flaw, and certainly nothing to dismiss the entirety of science over. But that notion, that everything has a material explanation, when it becomes ideological, when it is accepted as simple truth, precludes the acceptance of the supernatural. There is no supernatural BECAUSE everything has a material explanation. But it's not true. It's not a proof against the existence of the supernatural. If it was true, if it was proven, fuck yeah it'd be a proof and fuck yeah we'd know for certain that there's no such thing as the supernatural. But it's not proven and it can't be proven. Thus an ideological notion, that everything has a material explanation, leads to another ideological position, that THEREFORE the supernatural CANNOT exist. But none of that is true. This of course doesn't mean that the supernatural DOES exist, but that since we cannot prove/disprove naturalism, since we cannot prove/disprove supernaturalism, we cannot say that the supernatural cannot exist. We can believe it does, we can believe it doesn't but those beliefs are the result of an ideological belief, not fact. I'm pointing that out and being told that because science is so great, which it is, that I'm full of shit. Well I'm sorry, science is great, but trumpeting its greatness doesn't take away from the fact that what I'm saying is true. The belief that there is no supernatural because everything has a material explanation is ideological, not scientific.

So I don't understand what you're saying about natures and all the rest. I tried before to say that if someone makes a claim about God, like, say, he gives you candy when you say his name three times, then by all means, that can be proved/disproved. But that doesn't comment whatsoever on whether or not God exists in the first place.

Empirical observation relies on natural law. So many joules, so many metres, so many newtons, so many atoms, so many dimensions, so many photons; it's all measurable BECAUSE the laws are constant. The supernatural, should it exist, by definition, the prefix super means nothing less than the supernatural is above and beyond the natural. A supernatural entity can do something natural. But a supernatural entity can also do something that is immeasurable and inconstant with natural law meaning that there can be no empirical evidence. This is a limit of science. It cannot comment on the supernatural, only the natural. This doesn't mean science is shit, it means it has a limit. But that limit is nonsensical to people biased by the ideological position of naturalism because to them there cannot be anything other than the natural, so the notion that science has limits is irrational. But again, that's an ideological bias and needs to be recognised as such.

Quote:I guess my central point is that when people describe their gods as
being supernatural, I would seriously question any such statement.

I question anyone that says that a phenomenon or an entity is supernatural because they have no proof. I can believe that they believe it, but that's it.

For the same reason, I question anyone that says that there is no such thing as the supernatural because they have no proof. I can believe they believe it, but that's it.

I have no issue with anyone that says there there are phenomena, most of the ones we've encountered, that have material explanations because that has been proven.

Lol, seems I had more to add than I thought Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 01:19 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
(23-04-2012 11:11 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Noah.

Wow. Really? I presented a hypothetical situation and you're telling me... I'm literally having a hard time grasping your issue because it's so cockamamie that I'm just stunned.

Clearly you're not reading a single thing I've written.

Your calling me closed minded is just laughable. For real, dude. I'm not even angry. It's just so bloody ridiculous that I'm struggling to figure out how to explain why its so... silly... and still advance the conversation.

I said that for the sake of the hypothetical that the example simply was a supernatural phenomenon and you're trying to tell me that I'm closed minded because I'm not considering other possibilities. That's just beyond the pale. That's like if I said, for the sake of the hypothetical there's a guy named Bill and you called me closed minded because I wasn't considering the fact that he had a different name. I just... I'm at a loss.

You asked me to prove something that I have said, several times, is unprovable. How is that a reasonable request? You're also asking me to prove a hypothetical analogy that was used for illustration only. If it was an event that had occurred, ok, sure, ask away, but it's an utter fabrication. How do I respond to that?

I never said that science is a philosophy. I said that methodological naturalism is for no reason other than it cannot be empirically proven to be true. I've even said that if anyone can show me some proof, some experiment that proved it, something peer reviewed, something with some shred of scientific merit, that I'd happily accept it. But it doesn't exist.

..........Ugh, you know what. I was responding to your post as I was reading it, but I just read ahead. You are not engaging with what I'm saying. You're assuming that I'm parroting something you've encountered somewhere else and you're talking at me with talking points. You can't tell the difference between a harsh critique of an idea and an ad hominem attack. So since you have sum zero to add to this conversation and since on top of everything you're demonstrating prejudice towards Agnostics, I'm done with you.
Calling a statement I made a "logical trainwreck" without any explanation as to why isn't supposed to be insulting? Whether you meant to or not, it did. I don't take kindly to bullshit remarks like that. At least I had the fucking decency to attempt to you why I thought your hypothetical situation was flawed.

I fully accepted your hypothetical situation and I questioned why you use the term "supernatural". What is your reasoning for using this example and inserting the supernatural into this conversation?

If you can't even hypothetically show how your supernatural example could be supernatural, then why the fuck did you bring it up? In your hypothesis, are you suggesting that a deity could have made that so?

And I don't have a negative bias towards agnostics. Something else you failed to comprehend in my reply. I said you ARE THE WORST KIND of agnostic. As in there are plenty of other types. Agnostic theists, agnostic deists, agnostics, agnostic atheists.... I'm an agnostic atheist myself.

You are the true fence sitter type agnostic and that is what I call a lazy agnostic. Prove me wrong with more of your hypothetical Supernatural scenarios.

Quote: I question anyone that says that there is no such thing as the supernatural because they have no proof
That comment of yours highlights just how much of a "I don't know" agnostic you are. Let me share your philosophy for a moment...

I question anyone that says there is no such thing as Santa Claus because they have no proof...

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
Noah.

"I don't dislike Agnostics, just lazy ones that sit on the fence."

You're a decent fellow and aside from the fact that you've been talking at me rather than with me, I like you. But on that point you can blow it out your ass. I don't care if you don't like so-called "fence sitters". That's a pejorative term that you are 100% using in a pejorative manner and I don't have to stand for it. It's prejudice and if you can't see that then that's more sad than anything else.

I will not defend who I am and what I believe to the likes of you. When I was in the army, we had a toast. I think it applies here. "Here's to you and here's to me and here's to the fucking infantry and just in case you don't agree well fuck you and here's to me."

You want to have a conversation, fine. I'm game. I was having a great one with Bub. You want to hate on me because I fall into some category you've created, suck a dick.

I admit, logical trainwreck was harsh, but I said the statement was whack, not you. I said nothing ill of you personally. 'That' and 'you' mean two totally different things. Bottom line, what you said made zero sense and I didn't know where to begin so I pointed out that it was confusing. In all fairness, take some responsibility. I was having a very thoughtful conversation with Bub and you swooped in pretty aggressively. Just admit that. You hadn't earned any brownie points and I felt no need to pull my punches. But at the end of the day, there is a mountain of difference between me saying something you said is questionable and you attacking me as a person because of what I believe.

Supernatural wasn't inserted into the conversation, it WAS the conversation.

I don't even know anymore what conversation I'm having with you except for the fact that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying and blasting me for what you think I've said.

You want to know what I think about Santa Clause? Ask me. Cuz I'll tell you. You want to assume it and treat me like a simpleton, you can go home, head upstairs, kick off your shoes, lay down, get real comfy and take about 20 minutes to go fuck yourself.

I DO KNOW thank you very much. I know what empirical proof means and I know when it is preset and when it is absent.

Quote:In your hypothesis, are you suggesting that a deity could have made that so?

Go back and read it. I said it plainly enough.

And as for your discriminatory view of "fence sitting" Agnostics (I find that incredibly insulting on a personal level because ask anyone on this site, I may be ornery, I may have controversial ideas, but the last thing I am is thoughtless) I am not the worst kind of Agnostic, I'm the ONLY kind. Thomas Henry Huxley invented the term and he was very specific about it. What follows is what I believe. If you don't like that I do, then you don't matter to me.

Quote:Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the
principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
-Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 04:35 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
First of all, I was having a perfectly civil conversation with you until you made that logical trainwreck comment. I explained why that is HIGHLY insulting TO ME whether or not that was your intent.

It's like the same idea as when White people ask me what my real name is after I tell them my American name given to me at birth. You see, I'm Korean... born in Guam, but grew up in Vegas. I have 0 accent. I tell an ignorant white American (not racist, I'm being 100% truthful that I have had this happen to me a dozen times and they were ALL Caucasian) my American name and they think it's some pseudo name and my real one is Kimchi Bokum or something.

They don't mean to insult, but damned if I'm not fucking insulted.

So when you tell me a comment that I made, which in my mind was thought out and logically produced, is a "logical trainwreck" it insults my intelligence.

Here's how I view logic:

General idea about the meaning of logic: "My logic is sound, so yours has to be wrong"

My idea of logic: "My logic is sound, but wait, so is yours... but here's what I find flawed about it"

So by you declaring that mine is outright a trainwreck without any explanation whatsoever is just fucking arrogant bro. That's what I meant when I said you just opened the floodgates.

But I digress, arguing is now pointless now that you pointed out that you did not mean to insult. I admit I intentionally meant to insult you. Although I do stand my ground about how I view certain types of agnostics. I don't share your school of thought about the definition of agnosticism. There are multiple types of agnostics and gnostics. It doesn't matter who invented the term and what they defined it as. If we stuck to those rules with language, it would be vastly different from what it is now.

Have a nice day now and thanks for serving this country. Genuine in that last thanks. Whether or not the country is actually sending you for what you personally believe you are fighting for does not matter. You're still fighting.

P.S. I still say you need to tweak your vocabulary. Paranormal vs Supernatural.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2012, 06:15 PM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
Noah.

Quote:...and they think it's some pseudo name and my real one is Kimchi Bokum or something.

OK, that one made me laugh out loud for reelz Big Grin

I understand why you took offense and for what it's worth I'm sorry if you felt offended (cough, still waiting for my apology, cough). The difference for me is, when my favourite author told me that my manuscript was a trainwreck (not those words, but close enough) he wasn't insulting me, he was telling the truth. It was a trainwreck. He was telling me to rethink something I thought I had nailed, maaaaaan. Namean? What you wrote, while considered, was incomprehensible. Like if I said, "Farts are purple because doves navigate the wild Neptune," you'd be like, "Uh, how the fuck do I respond to that?" What I said was less an attempt at insult and more a backhanded way (cuz, dude, the first thing you ever said to me was, you're wrong, fess up, Mr. I'm Not Aggressive) to tell you to regroup and reconsider. I'm interested in your critiques of me (particularly if they have value) and I'm interested in what you have to say.

But as much as I may have opened the floodgates, bro, an ad hom is an ad hom. I can tell you're smart enough to know that.

Quote:I admit I intentionally meant to insult you.

See Cool

Thank you very much. That means a lot to me. I can appreciate that you're gonna stand your ground, but I'm serious. Think a couple more minutes about what you said. It's prejudiced. As minorities, we gotta be particularly vigilant about that kind of shit, namean, Kimchi Bokum?

ROFL, I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. For real, that comment of yours fucking murdered me. I'm like a giggling simp up in this bitch lol Cool

Self identification is an important part of culture. It allows us to deconstruct existing ideological definitions and expand and it is typically met with resistance. When I was a kid, calling a man post-sex change SHE was unthinkable. But now, because they said, "this is how I want to be referred to," that's what we do. Because it's honest and non-hegemonic. We aren't TELLING them what they're gonna be called and to shut the fuck up and like it. Definition is very much about power. When I say I'm an Agnostic, period, people shit all over me even though leading Atheists like Dawkins suggest that such a category exists (#4 on his scale). I'm not some sissy who can't make up his mind. I know exactly who I am and what I think and I have very complex thoughts about a wide range of subjects, including the God question. I, like Huxley, do not pretend that things are certain when they have not been demonstrated or if they are indemonstrable and that's true from the God question, to whether there's life in an under-ice ocean on Europa, whether there's life elsewhere in the cosmos, or whether my buddy's gonna have a boy or a girl. I am a man of science and reason and it is that that leads me to my Agnosticism, not some wishy washy inability to make a decision. That ain't me, brother.

The problem is, if you view me as a TYPE of Agnostic rather than as Matt, dude, that's discrimination right there. Ya feel me?

It's cool that you don't share my school of thought. I don't share yours. But I'm willing to listen to yours and there's room in my world for differing opinions. Like the Hagakure says:
Quote:It is bad when one thing becomes two.
One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai.
It is the same for anything that is called a Way.
If one understands things in this manner,
he should be able to hear about all ways
and be more and more in accord with his own.

Also, I don't know which country you think I served, but I'm a Canadian Cool

PARANORMAL vs SUPERNATURAL

I think paranormal is a fine term for things we don't know. "Oh shit, dude, did you see Chris Angel walk down the side of that building? Was that magic, or is he just a super powered douche?" That building walk is Paranormal. We don't know.

Natural is fine too. There are rules that limit and explain natural phenomena. That's cool.

The supernatural question is simple. If a phenomena is natural, whether we know it is, or whether we've called it paranormal, even if we haven't observed the damn thing, then it's natural. But, if a phenomenon VIOLATES natural law, doesn't redefine it, it's not a case of we just don't know enough about it yet to know whether it is or not, and even if we didn't observe the thing, then it is supernatural. That's just true by definition. Whether or not the supernatural exists, who knows. There's no evidence one way or another. There's evidence that the natural exists and tons of it, but that isn't the same thing. Naturalism is an assumption, not a fact. That assumption cannot rule out the supernatural. If it were a fact, sure, but not as an assumption.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2012, 06:15 AM
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
Canada? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING! Actually, it changes two things... instead of fighting for America, thanks for fighting for a country that allows our 19 year old's to cross the border to get hammered. And for giving me the option to pick up a high-flow toilet.

To be fair about your "insult", you didn't just say my comment was a "trainwreck". You said it was a "logical" one. That is where the perceived assault on my intelligence came in. There are three things I have 0 patience for:

1) Insults on my intelligence
2) Attempt at, or successful, physical harm to me or my family
3) Justin Bieber fans as those little punk ass girls make me want to rethink my stance on spanking children

After all, my mind, body, and family are all I have to live this life happily.

Revisiting your "supernatural" hypothesis, my major point is that you do not know if natural laws were "violated". You do know that KNOWN natural laws were violated. That necessarily mean it even could be supernatural. The fact that your hypothesis states that something "violates" natural laws means it MUST BE supernatural. If natural law is proven to be violated, then it must be supernatural. That would be proof of a supernatural event.

I do know what you're getting at though. I guess I'm nitpicking your use of language. In the same way I will zealously debate someone when they use the phrase, "common sense". It just makes my skin crawl.

By the way, I am sorry. And yes, I intentionally put this at the end in hopes to make you experience a "wtf" moment. Evil_monster

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2012, 06:20 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2012 06:27 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Hasn't god been disproved?
I think you're wrong about that, Matt. The difference between natural and supernatural isn't about whether it breaks particular laws that we may believe are constant. The question is whether it itself has a nature, and whether it itself has properties that are definable and constant. You have to understand that when all this science business got started we didn't know a damn thing that was useful to know about how stuff worked. There were no "natural" laws to break. The question was: What are the innate properties of the things around us? What is the nature of each thing? What can we know about things in a way that will always hold true?

As science has developed it has looked deeply into the nature of all the things we can detect with our senses and our instruments. The things we understand have come to be thought about as being natural while things that we can't observe in any way but still want to claim exist have been thought about as being supernatural. Well, that's bunk. Do those things have innate properties? Do these properties hold true? If so, there is no reason to exclude them from "nature" or from the domain of scientific analysis.

The things claimed as supernatural are not supernatural. They are ideas that if true have defined immutable properties. God answers prayer, right? Well, no. Science can test that claim and determine that it is false. We could conclude that God deliberately let all those people in the study die in order to conceal is his presence from us - that presence that we all must know about and accept or spend eternity in hell - but that would make him an evil little mofo and that too is contrary to his supposed properties.

You are using the wrong definition of supernatural if you are using the term to them imply something excluded from scientific analysis. You are using the term for things you think can defy our known physics, but that alone does not exclude it from scientific analysis. What excludes something from scientific analysis is if it has either no immutable properties (ie it has no "nature") or if none of those properties interact with the universe in such a way as they could be tested.

I don't by any means exclude the possibility that beings exist outside our universe that don't interact with the universe (or at least our neighbourhood within the universe). I don't exclude the possibility of alien life that is too far away for us to detect. I don't exclude the possibility of surprising life forms within our own planet.

However, I do exclude the existence of all identified beings that people normally describe as "supernatural" - because they aren't supernatural. They have definable testable properties that have all been found baseless and unevidenced. Maybe there are a few obscure ones that haven't been up against sufficient scientific scrutiny as yet, but I think every one that counts has had its properties disproven.

So while technically, mathematically, I could be called agnostic in the sense that I'll be happy to accept new evidence as it comes in - I think there has been sufficient time to prove the supernatural beings of our myths and legends, and I think there has been sufficient investigation into mythological and legendary claims to reasonably exclude those that have not already found their way into the scientific canon.

So to channel another Australian for a moment:
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?
Medicine.
Do you know what they call monsters that have been proven to exist?
Animals.
Do you know what they call gods that have been proven to exist?
Aliens (or insert chirping crickets, whatever)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: