|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Or because they said so? Because they predicted so. The hypothetico-deductive method in action. The theistic claim in question was that those closest to GOD would be imbued with supernatural healing powers. Lo and behold priests all around the world are suddenly and verifiably able to heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and so on and so forth. The Pope is verifiably able to resurrect the dead. In such a scenario to say that the theistic supernatural claim in question remains as objectively unevidenced as it does without the regrown limbs and raised dead bodies, to say that scientifically verified occurrances of these events have no evidential relevance to the claim at hand, is clearly idiotic. An act of obstinacy gone mad. Especially from someone whose threshold for evidencing supernatural claims usually lies as low as accepting voices inside peoples heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So in our scenario we have a video recording of GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) undertaking supernatural feats in laboratory conditions.
In the scenario described we have physical evidence of the supernatural.
jar writes: If you say it is GOD then I have to ask you how you know that. What does my personal knowledge have to do with whether that video recording really is of GOD or not? If it is GOD, as it is in the scenario as defined, then we have physical evidence of the supernatural. My knowledge has no bearing on the scenario described. You continue to conflate "I will never accept evidence of the supernatural" with "evidence of the supernatural can never physically exist"
jar writes: Now if you want to say that you believe that it was GOD I have no problem with you making that statement. Neither my beliefs nor your filing system preferences have any relevance as to whether physical evidence of the supernatural can exist. Stop conflating the acceptance of evidence with the possible existence of evidence. Let's look at something you said to Numbers earlier:
jar writes: Your post shows you simply substituting "Supernatural" for "Unknown" with the assumption that someday the actual cause and process will be explained. That seems a tacit assumption that there really isn't a supernatural. So why not do as I suggest and simply place the even in the unknown/unexplained folder? So the recording of GOD from our scenario ends up in your "unknown" folder. But even if I'm long dead and you never move that recording from your "unknown" folder, evidence of the supernatural still exists because that recording of GOD undertaking supernatural feats still exists. Your acceptance of, and the possible existence of, evidence are not the same thing. Stop conflating the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The reasoning behind religion may or may not be sound. The reason that it is not sound is because sound reasoning requires sound premises. Starting with a sound premise is part of the reasoning process. Thinking that you can know something that you can not support with any empirical evidence is faulty reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Thinking that you can know something that you can not support with any empirical evidence is faulty [empirical] reasoning. Fixed. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, in your scenario you have a recording that you claim is GOD.
It is reasonable to ask you yet again how you know it is GOD. I am not saying the evidence of the supernatural cannot exist, I am saying I cannot see anyway evidence of the supernatural could exist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Within the context of trying to understand reality, what other kind is there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
There is always something that is beyond our capacity to define it.
Actually jar has previously told me that the term GOD is devoid of definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
You're conflating. Premises are essentially separate from the reasoning based on those premises. You can reason badly on good premises and you can reason well on bad premises. The reason that it is not sound is because sound reasoning requires sound premises. Reasoning based on the premise that gods exist can be perfectly sound - only the conclusions are suspect because the premise is suspect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Within the context of trying to understand [empirical] reality, what other kind is there? Fixed again. Reality, of course, is that which is realempirical or not. If the phenomenon you seek to investigate is wholly and entirely non-empirical, then trying to determine whether it is real or not by applying empirical standards is crappy investigatingor simply dishonest. You can't use a ruler to measure the brightness of the Sun.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Reasoning based on the premise that gods exist can be perfectly sound - only the conclusions are suspect because the premise is suspect. The premise must be falsifiable in order to be worked on by the reasoning process. This is the first boundary if you are bound by logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Reality, of course, is that which is realempirical or not. I agree that reality is what it is regardless of whether or not we can 'prove' it. The only part that we can 'know' is real is the part that we can 'prove'.
If the phenomenon you seek to investigate is wholly and entirely non-empirical, then trying to determine whether it is real or not by applying empirical standards is crappy investigatingor simply dishonest. If the phenomenon is wholly and entirely non-empirical then there is nothing to investigate and no way to investigate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
The truth of the premise is assigned by a separate reasoning process. For a given reasoning "session" (e.g. a syllogism) the premises and the reasoning itself are independent.
The premise must be falsifiable in order to be worked on by the reasoning process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Mutwa writes: One is either doing science or not.
Exactly. So how could we ever conclude that something was supernatural and still claim to be doing science? Mutwa writes: Why? can you distiquish something supernatural causing a tree to fall from a tree falling naturally?
If all you are saying is that we can have evidence for what people call supernatural then I have no objections. But if we have evidence then they were wrong to ever think it was supernatural. Mutwa writes: Strange? Unexplained? I don't know, but I would not conclude that it was supernatural. I would either discover a cause, making it natural, or not, meaning the cause was unknown. So your criteria is based on apriori conclusions that it is not supernatural but rather unknown. The cause of the supernatural is unknown. You are simply concluding ahead of time that there is no supernatural. Which is a popular position, but does not a convincing argument make. It is the argument strategy, reductio ad absurdium and the fallacy of incredulity."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The truth of the premise is assigned by a separate reasoning process. A separate reasoning event but the process is the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So we have established that a recording of GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) undertaking supernatural feats could conceivably exist.
We have established that it's not definitionally impossible for physical evidence of the supernatural (e.g. the video recording of GOD in the scenario) to exist. But we have also established that your personal filing preferences would mean that this recording of GOD undertaking supernatural feats would never ever end up in your "supernatural" folder. Even if it was the real deal. Even if it were GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) on that recording it would still never cause you to open your "supernatural folder". So it' not that the supernatural cannot be evidenced. It's that you would never accept any evidence even if it existed anyway. Those are quite different things jar. Let's not conflate the two eh?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024