Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,660 Year: 1,917/9,624 Month: 1,350/567 Week: 296/601 Day: 39/32 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 466 of 693 (711298)
11-17-2013 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 2:48 PM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 3:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 467 of 693 (711300)
11-17-2013 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by jar
11-15-2013 2:45 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by jar, posted 11-15-2013 2:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by jar, posted 11-17-2013 9:35 AM Straggler has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 468 of 693 (711308)
11-17-2013 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by ringo
11-13-2013 11:13 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ringo, posted 11-13-2013 11:13 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Jon, posted 11-17-2013 9:32 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 473 by ringo, posted 11-17-2013 1:38 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 469 of 693 (711309)
11-17-2013 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Dogmafood
11-17-2013 8:23 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 8:23 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 10:24 AM Jon has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 470 of 693 (711310)
11-17-2013 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Straggler
11-17-2013 5:46 AM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2013 5:46 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Straggler, posted 11-19-2013 7:42 AM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 471 of 693 (711316)
11-17-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Jon
11-17-2013 9:32 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
Within the context of trying to understand reality, what other kind is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Jon, posted 11-17-2013 9:32 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Jon, posted 11-17-2013 7:47 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 472 of 693 (711323)
11-17-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Straggler
11-16-2013 9:38 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
Straggler writes:
Actually jar has previously told me that the term GOD is devoid of definition.
There is always something that is beyond our capacity to define it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2013 9:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Straggler, posted 11-19-2013 7:49 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 473 of 693 (711324)
11-17-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Dogmafood
11-17-2013 8:23 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
ProtoTypical writes:
The reason that it is not sound is because sound reasoning requires sound premises.
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.
Reasoning based on the premise that gods exist can be perfectly sound - only the conclusions are suspect because the premise is suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 8:23 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 9:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 474 of 693 (711347)
11-17-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Dogmafood
11-17-2013 10:24 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 10:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 9:33 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 475 of 693 (711351)
11-17-2013 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by ringo
11-17-2013 1:38 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by ringo, posted 11-17-2013 1:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by ringo, posted 11-18-2013 11:39 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 476 of 693 (711352)
11-17-2013 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Jon
11-17-2013 7:47 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Jon, posted 11-17-2013 7:47 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 477 of 693 (711404)
11-18-2013 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Dogmafood
11-17-2013 9:32 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
ProtoTypical writes:
The premise must be falsifiable in order to be worked on by the reasoning process.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Dogmafood, posted 11-17-2013 9:32 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Dogmafood, posted 11-18-2013 6:43 PM ringo has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 478 of 693 (711409)
11-18-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 12:26 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
Mutwa writes:
Exactly. So how could we ever conclude that something was supernatural and still claim to be doing science?
One is either doing science or not.
Mutwa writes:
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.
Why? can you distiquish something supernatural causing a tree to fall from a tree falling naturally?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:26 PM Mutwa has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 479 of 693 (711429)
11-18-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ringo
11-18-2013 11:39 AM


Re: It's All In your Mind
The truth of the premise is assigned by a separate reasoning process.
A separate reasoning event but the process is the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ringo, posted 11-18-2013 11:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 11-19-2013 10:39 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 480 of 693 (711445)
11-19-2013 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by jar
11-17-2013 9:35 AM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by jar, posted 11-17-2013 9:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by jar, posted 11-19-2013 8:54 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024