|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Bikey writes: Kid was a natural - as soon as I explained light clocks he got it - not many do. So what is your background? Physics educated? Physics profesional even? Or an interested amateur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Only did A level and 1st year undergrad engineering maths and physics. Degree in computer systems - a teaching degree not a 'proper one' :-)
I only got interested in physics in my 30s. I built a web site for a physicist and the payment was her time teaching me. I've done another similar deal since with a chap who is a particle physicist but I'm finding the maths harder and harder to get to the next step. I got tensors after a while, and manage Hamiltonians/Lagrangians by memory and brute force rather than elegance and understanding. When we start getting into lie groups then I hit a wall... So I suppose very amateur would be the best description, but with a couple of good teachers who've given me the basics of Relativity and an outline of quantum physics where I can at least follow some of the maths, if not getting down and dirty with it....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Biker writes: Degree in computer systems - a teaching degree not a 'proper one' :-) I was once a physics teacher for my sins......
Biker writes: Only did A level..... "A level" - I have just realised you are a fellow Brit. No wonder you seem so comparatively eloquent and annoyingly knowledgeable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Caf writes:
Before we can decide if all supernatural explanations have failed, we have to have some clear definition of what you mean as supernatural.Straggler writes:
The inmaterial is inherently immune from investigation.
That which is inherently immune from material investigation of any sort?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: The inmaterial is inherently immune from investigation. Not if it is being proclaimed as the cause of natural phenomenon. As is the premise of this thread. Read the OP. Then get back to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
The problem is the OP. As alluded to seems circular. If one states that anything that occurs in the universe is by definition natural, then adding "super-natural" seems silly to me.
If I say god is a natural part of the universe. That would defeat the premise that god is "apart" from the universe. So to get around that one can conjure a god that prevades the universe and is also a intrinsic part of it. Hence super natural. Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god. Which of course brings us full circle eh? .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: The problem is the OP. As alluded to seems circular. If one states that anything that occurs in the universe is by definition natural, then adding "super-natural" seems silly to me. Then you will be delighted to know that I have NOT defined things in this way.
Numbers writes: If I say god is a natural part of the universe. That would defeat the premise that god is "apart" from the universe. If you say god is inherently immune from material detection because he/it is neither derived from nor subject to physically natural laws then I will be happy to show you why you are almost certainly wrong.
Numbers writes: Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god. Then I call "bullshit".
Numbers writes: Which of course brings us full circle eh? Like anyone who claims to be a man of many corners in the circle of life I dispute your pseudo-intellectualistic theistic drivel as blatant bollocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Strag!
Staggler writes: First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?
If you say god is inherently immune from material detection because he/it is neither derived from nor subject to physically natural laws then I will be happy to show you why you are almost certainly wrong. quote: Straggler writes: Sweet. But I am pretty sure you call that alot so it seems empty.
Then I call "bullshit". Straggler writes: Like anyone who claims to be a man of many corners in the circle of life I dispute your pseudo-intellectualistic theistic drivel as blatant bollocks. I liked your "bullshit" retort better. Less wordy, just as crass. Has the Supernatural Hypothesis failed? Yes. imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps? Well why do you think dark matter is even being postulated but for detectable physical effects?
Numbers writes: imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence. Why? Given that humanity has ceaselessly put forward supernatural explanations for what have turned out to be wholly naturally explicable phenomenon what would you call it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes:
[/qs] Can I quote you? "Bullshit" Why? Given that humanity has ceaselessly put forward supernatural explanations for what have turned out to be wholly naturally explicable phenomenon what would you call it? Edited by 1.61803, : organization
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: "Bullshit" As accurate as that broad description may be it is not unique to the question at hand. Could you be more specific?
Numbers writes: imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence. Why do those two words not belong in the same sentance? I don't see how you can agree that the supernatural hypothesis has failed on the basis that science has repeatedly overturned claims of the supernatural whilst simultaneously asserting that science can say nothing about supernatural claims. It doesn't add up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hypothesis is, if memory serves a fundamental tenant of scientific inquiry.
The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Golden Ratio writes: First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?Straggler writes:
It is being postulated as a possible way of explaining some otherwise unexplained observations. That does not mean that it has been detected.Well why do you think dark matter is even being postulated but for detectable physical effects? In the past, science has postulated a luminiferous ether to account for observations. That was eventually abandoned. Before that, there was phlogiston. I don't believe that there is anything within science that could be considered to be "the supernatural hypothesis." So I don't see that anything has failed. Perhaps one could say that there is a supernatural hypothesis within religion. But in that case, it has surely been quite effective (from a religious point of view).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet. And yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome.
Nwr on Dark Matter writes: It is being postulated as a possible way of explaining some otherwise unexplained observations. That does not mean that it has been detected. Which is exactly what I said. But if Dark Matter turns out not to not be the answer the Dark Matter hypothesis will have failed will it not?. Given that the supernatural has been repeatedly and erroneously postulated as a means of explaining otherwise unexplained phenomenon at previous points in time without a single instance of success it seems fair to say that the supernatural hypothesis has failed - No?
Nwr writes: In the past, science has postulated a luminiferous ether to account for observations. Indeed. And it would be fair to say that the luminous ether hypothesis had failed as well would it not?
Nwr writes: That was eventually abandoned. Yes. Very much like the supernatural hypothesis for any number of observed phenomenon.
Nwr writes: I don't believe that there is anything within science that could be considered to be "the supernatural hypothesis." So I don't see that anything has failed. Whether you want to call it "the supernatural hypothesis" or the claim that "somethingsupernaturaldidit" is irrelevant. The fact is that humanity has a long history of erroneously citing supernatural answers to seemingly inexplicable observed phenomenon. Anyone still suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for any observed phenomenon is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction. Not reason. And the whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is little more than a method of appeasing apologists who are being forced to deal with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: Hypothesis is, if memory serves a fundamental tenant of scientific inquiry. "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon"
Wiki on hypothesis Numbers writes: The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet. And yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome. Your whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is nothing more than an apologists way of dealing with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024