Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,461 Year: 6,718/9,624 Month: 58/238 Week: 58/22 Day: 13/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 207 (635050)
09-26-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
09-26-2011 5:01 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler previously writes:
But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms? What is the difference?
Chuck writes:
Dude, stop playing around. Of course I believe it's God. Im happy to say it's God every time believe me.
Chuck writes:
Nothing happens on it's own.
So as far as you are concerned God is directly manipulating the world to cause storms and allow aeroplanes and birds to fly? The naturalistic explanations for these things in no way negates any direct role for God in these, or any other, phenomena? God is playing the role assigned to Thor and the flight gnomes mentioned above?
Chuck writes:
So yeah, of course that is true and I fully believe it. Sometimes you know he is there and other times you know
Well the last time you (very belligerently) claimed to know something you had to back down and admit that you didn't really know it at all.
In this case can you explain how your "know" is anything more than an expression of deep conviction?
Chuck writes:
The only DNA we would have a Jesus would be something he touched or wore, etc... when here 2000 years ago.
It is nonsensical for you to fanatically cheer the notion that the supernatural is something inherently and innately unable to be studied whilst simultaneously believing in a supernatural being that walked amongst us in a physical form.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 5:01 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 207 (635055)
09-26-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
09-26-2011 7:02 AM


Scientifically Studying The Efficacy of Prayer
The Templeton Foundation (a pro-theistic organisation) did a blue ribbon standard, peer reviewed study into the efficacy of prayer after a number of previous studies in the field were accused of methodological weaknesses. The results of this study were negative. Templeton Foundation Post Research Press Release and Associated Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 09-26-2011 7:02 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Larni, posted 09-26-2011 1:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 88 of 207 (635061)
09-26-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
09-25-2011 5:11 PM


If the supernatural is anything outside of human perception....
GDR writes:
Sheesh. We went through a whole thread to determine that there was no such thing as "subjective evidence".
Alas not everyone is as enlightened or reasonable as you and I GDR.
GDR writes:
If the supernatural is anything outside of human perception,....
Then how can it's conception be sourced from anywhere other than the internal workings of creative minds?
GDR writes:
....(something along the lines of the SA article that I mentioned), then maybe you're right.
I think this is the article you are talking about.
Link
I don't see anything in here that would qualify as supernatural. Indeed there seems to be a case being made that we can and are scientifically investigating these areas. If anyone thinks "supernatural" is simply that which is a generation or two of particle accelerators away from being scientifically understood then I would probably qualify as a raging supernaturalist.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 09-25-2011 5:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 09-26-2011 11:24 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 91 of 207 (635078)
09-26-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by GDR
09-26-2011 11:24 AM


Re: If the supernatural is anything outside of human perception....
Well we have had physicists offering to eat their pants on live TV if the 'faster than light' travel thing is confirmed.
Christ alone knows what some of us will do if CERN actually discovers heaven!!!!!!
Play ping pong with my own eyeballs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 09-26-2011 11:24 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 09-26-2011 11:42 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 207 (635087)
09-26-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Larni
09-26-2011 1:14 PM


Re: Scientifically Studying The Efficacy of Prayer
Larni writes:
Does that mean we can conclude that the supernatural cannot be evidenced, I wonder?
I think it means we can conclude that when studied scientifically prayer doesn't appear to work.
No doubt believers will claim that the very act of studying it in this way negates the effects or somesuch. Anecdotal "evidence" will continue to be rife. But the best scientific study done to date doesn't corrobrate those subjective claims.
Larni writes:
I would like to see a meta analysis but I would be surprised if there were enough usable studies.
I think the quality of most of them, rather than the quantity, is the main problem. They need to be conducted just like the best medical trials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Larni, posted 09-26-2011 1:14 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by 1.61803, posted 09-26-2011 4:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 207 (635140)
09-27-2011 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by 1.61803
09-26-2011 4:10 PM


Re: Scientifically Studying The Efficacy of Prayer
Straggler writes:
I think it means we can conclude that when studied scientifically prayer doesn't appear to work.
Numbers writes:
Your right, and neither does our current models of cosmology.
Actually our model of cosmology works very well indeed. It just isn't entirely compatible with our other equally successful models (i.e. quantum theory). So we know something somewhere has to be a bit wrong in our scientific understanding of reality as a whole.
Numbers writes:
I wont be surprised if CERN discovers a substance called AETHER in the near future.
Well this is probably more likely than discovering heaven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by 1.61803, posted 09-26-2011 4:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by 1.61803, posted 09-27-2011 10:45 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 207 (635278)
09-28-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by GDR
09-27-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Newsweek Article
GDR writes:
As Feit says, "I don't think that by studying science you will be forced to conclude that there must be a God. But if you have already found God, then you can say, from understanding science, 'Ah, I see what God has done in the world'."
If you assume that the supernatural exists and then view scientific evidence as evidence of supernatural activity you will inevitably conclude that the supernatural exists. It's just quite obviously circular.
Surely science has to start by assuming nothing and following wherever it is the evidence leads? Surely science takes the following sort of approach:
Bertrand Russel writes:
I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. - Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays
GDR writes:
The question still remains though as to what is supernatural. Is it just some form of ghostly spiritual life floating around in our world that is nearly always unperceivable, or is it another normally unperceivable universe/dimension around us in which there is some form of intelligent life?
If it is the latter, then it seems to me that science might very well be available to discover it, in the terms of the Scientific American article that Straggler linked to earlier. Here again is that link. It seems to me that the information is that article is the crux of the notion of science "Studying the Supernatural"
Well with direct reference to the topic here - What things currently being studied at CERN, with telescopes etc. would constitute scientific evidence of the supernatural if found?
What do you think evidence of the supernatural would look like?
And if we don't find it is that indicative of the absence of supernatural involvement at all in your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by GDR, posted 09-27-2011 1:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 09-28-2011 2:24 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 207 (635655)
09-30-2011 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
09-28-2011 2:52 PM


Harold Camping Predictions
If (for example) Harold Camping had got it right that would constitute pretty conclusive evidence of the supernatural wouldn't it?
Due to the nature of the predicted event it would be shortlived (or arguably eternal I guess) evidence. But it would be evidence wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 09-28-2011 2:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 09-30-2011 11:32 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 151 of 207 (635668)
09-30-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by 1.61803
09-30-2011 11:32 AM


Re: Harold Camping Predictions
I don't "know".
But more to the point- If there were evidence that Harold Camping (or some other such equivalent) was correct (either in this universe or any other that we can gain evidence of) would that constitute evidence of the supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 09-30-2011 11:32 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by 1.61803, posted 10-04-2011 11:08 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 159 of 207 (635852)
10-02-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by GDR
10-01-2011 5:03 PM


Re: Are we part of a greater reality?
GDR writes:
Randall is talking about a universe/dimension that we are unable to access with our 5 senses no matter how enhanced those 5 senses are. Is this studying the supernatural, even without direct evidence fo any sentient life within it? If this universe/dimension exists how might we be able to determine how it interacts with our own reality and how would we be able to determine if there is sentient life of any form existing within it?
Imagine we are in the Matrix. Now I know this isn't quite what you meant but it could just as easily fit your description/criteria regarding us being in a sub reality of an undetectable greater reality.
Would the greater reality in which the matrix exists (the one where our brains are in pods or whatever) qualify as "supernatural".
I don't think it would.
So I don't think simply being a "greater reality" as you have suggested necessarily makes anything supernatural at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by GDR, posted 10-01-2011 5:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 10-02-2011 2:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 207 (635898)
10-02-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by GDR
10-02-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Are we part of a greater reality?
So the supernatural 'greater reality' you are talking about is one that "wouldn’t be subject to natural laws" - Is that correct?
If so I don't think the sort of extra dimensional conjectures that theoretical physicists are proposing (the sort of thing mentioned in previous links re CERN etc.) really qualify do they?
If they weren't subject to natural laws I don't see how we could discern their presence by extrapolating mathematical models which are based on the natural laws we do know about in this universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 10-02-2011 2:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 164 of 207 (636143)
10-04-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by GDR
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


Re: Are we part of a greater reality?
GDR writes:
Yes, as it would seem by definition that if it had natural laws, (as we understand natural), it would no longer be supernatural.
GDR writes:
I realize that we are well into the speculative realm here, but it does seem that there are some highly qualified physicists proposing models that would qualify.
Lisa Randall in GDR's quote writes:
And the other universe could have different laws of physics.
How would "different laws of physics" in this different universe qualify as "supernatural".....? Theoretical physicists have long been proposing the possibility of universes with different natural laws to the ones we know.
But that is hardly the same as finding heaven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 10-04-2011 11:38 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 166 of 207 (636155)
10-04-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by 1.61803
10-04-2011 11:08 AM


Re: Harold Camping Predictions
This is what Camping predicted:
Wiki writes:
His 2011 end times prediction was that on May 21, 2011 Jesus Christ would return to Earth, the righteous would fly up to heaven, and that there would follow five months of fire, brimstone and plagues on Earth, with millions of people dying each day, culminating on October 21, 2011 with the end of the world.
If this had happened, indeed we would be in in the middle of the fire and brimstone part of it now, I don't really see how anyone could meaningfully deny that this would constitute positive evidence of Christian supernatural claims.
Call me a pseudskeptic if you will - But I doubt his revised claim will amount to much either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by 1.61803, posted 10-04-2011 11:08 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by 1.61803, posted 10-05-2011 4:15 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 170 of 207 (636164)
10-04-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by GDR
10-04-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Are we part of a greater reality?
I recommend to you a book called Parallel Worlds; A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku.
In it he speculates about the possibility of intelligent life leaving this universe and going to another (particularly in the context of our own universe reaching a heat death state) - He talks about the physics of that possibility. It's interesting and entertaining.
But I am still doubtful that any of this relates to anything that can meaningfully be called "supernatural". So I'll leave it there.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 10-04-2011 11:38 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by GDR, posted 10-04-2011 1:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 173 of 207 (636197)
10-04-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by GDR
10-04-2011 1:50 PM


Re: Are we part of a greater reality?
GDR writes:
Is there any particular part that you recommend that I re-read.?
I think it is right at the end where he talks about how intelligent beings in a dying universe might be able to "wormhole" their way (or at least some form of data from which they could be reconstructed in some sense) into a parallel universe.
It sort of echoes Taq's analogy of other universes being a bit like other continents to our long long dead ancestors. That it is difficult to get to doesn't make it "supetrnatural" or even part of a greater reality rather than just an expansion of what we understand as reality.
GDR quoting others writes:
Wigner's interpretation puts the question of consciousness at the very center of the foundation of physics.
The role of the consciousness in QM is a subject of much misconception. Here is a recent article on that specifically Link
Link writes:
The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article.
And you mentioned Wheeler in particular:
quote:
Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).
GDR writes:
I have no idea how much we can learn about this greater reality but it does appear that we are making headway and who knows how much it is possible for us to learn.
I remain unconvinced that there is anything "supernatural" about this "greater reality". It seems more just a case of being difficult to investigate. And that is very probably a technological problem more than anything more mysterious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by GDR, posted 10-04-2011 1:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by GDR, posted 10-04-2011 8:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024