Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

science can disprove fallacies like Earth being created 4000 B.C.

Only within a scientific context. The world, the light from the stars being halfway, dinosaurbones and all creatures could have been created instantly 4000 BC. Hell, it could have happened 10 seconds ago. But that'd be supernatural, and science doesn't concern itself with supernatural. So to science, that did or didn't happen. No way to prove or disprove it, so it's not worth even thinking about, according to science.
I don't know why so many atheists (not all of you, I know) keep hammering on how supernatural things are false or wrong or nonsense, because science just ignores it and says "Meh, I can't know, so I don't care". Which is the "right" attitude.

[RAM]

It is all fine and well to say 'anything is possible' but the fact is that people make assumptions, and assumptions based upon science are the best that we've got.

And 'science', doesn't concern itself with anything, it is just a method. People can apply the scientific method to the supernatural if they want to. The lack of evidence(due to the subject being fictional) makes analysis difficult, but that applies to any form of assessment, from faith to throwing bones. With no feedback you can't get any results. But science can actually make a pretty good go at the supernatural. You can take known values, such as people, and assess the implications of an unknown value, such as heaven, on the known value. For example, if heaven is available to everyone, and being in heaven makes you happy, then it must be possible for anyone to be permanently happy. Unfortunately, some people's nature causes them to be unhappy at times regardless of external influences. So they cannot be permanently in heaven, unless they are modified, at which point they will no longer be themselves so it still stands that they couldn't get into heaven. So we can prove, scientifically, that heaven is either exclusive, malevolent, or imperfect...

[Neruz]

science can disprove fallacies like Earth being created 4000 B.C.

Only within a scientific context. The world, the light from the stars being halfway, dinosaurbones and all creatures could have been created instantly 4000 BC. Hell, it could have happened 10 seconds ago. But that'd be supernatural, and science doesn't concern itself with supernatural. So to science, that did or didn't happen. No way to prove or disprove it, so it's not worth even thinking about, according to science.
I don't know why so many atheists (not all of you, I know) keep hammering on how supernatural things are false or wrong or nonsense, because science just ignores it and says "Meh, I can't know, so I don't care". Which is the "right" attitude.

If you can't know, it's irrelevant. If something is completely impossible to ever get any sort of reliable information about, then it is completely and totally irrelevant.

[Sordid]

If you can't know, it's irrelevant. If something is completely impossible to ever get any sort of reliable information about, then it is completely and totally irrelevant.

That doesn't quite do it justice. What it really is is indistinguishable from non-existent. The invisible looks very much like the non-existent. And as far as I know, two things totally and completely indistinguishable from each other are one and the same. Supernatural = inscrutable to science = non-existent.

[Neruz]

If you can't know, it's irrelevant. If something is completely impossible to ever get any sort of reliable information about, then it is completely and totally irrelevant.

That doesn't quite do it justice. What it really is is indistinguishable from non-existent. The invisible looks very much like the non-existent. And as far as I know, two things totally and completely indistinguishable from each other are one and the same. Supernatural = inscrutable to science = non-existent.

Not neccessarily, it might exist, but if it interacts with the Universe in any meaningful way, then reliable data can be gathered about it. If no reliable data can be gathered, then that means it does not interact with the Universe in any meaningful way, and thus is either nonexistant or irrelevant.

[Sordid]

If you can't know, it's irrelevant. If something is completely impossible to ever get any sort of reliable information about, then it is completely and totally irrelevant.

That doesn't quite do it justice. What it really is is indistinguishable from non-existent. The invisible looks very much like the non-existent. And as far as I know, two things totally and completely indistinguishable from each other are one and the same. Supernatural = inscrutable to science = non-existent.

Not neccessarily, it might exist, but if it interacts with the Universe in any meaningful way, then reliable data can be gathered about it. If no reliable data can be gathered, then that means it does not interact with the Universe in any meaningful way, and thus is either nonexistant or irrelevant.

I still don't see the distinction. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a goddamn duck.

[Neruz]

If you can't know, it's irrelevant. If something is completely impossible to ever get any sort of reliable information about, then it is completely and totally irrelevant.

That doesn't quite do it justice. What it really is is indistinguishable from non-existent. The invisible looks very much like the non-existent. And as far as I know, two things totally and completely indistinguishable from each other are one and the same. Supernatural = inscrutable to science = non-existent.

Not neccessarily, it might exist, but if it interacts with the Universe in any meaningful way, then reliable data can be gathered about it. If no reliable data can be gathered, then that means it does not interact with the Universe in any meaningful way, and thus is either nonexistant or irrelevant.

I still don't see the distinction. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a goddamn duck.

There's no practical distinction, only a philosophical one. From a practical standpoint things which do not exist and things which do not interact with the Universe are both irrelevant.

[Siquo]

You say practical, but you mean scientific. Those two are for you synonymous, but not for everyone.

Both Sordid and Neruz finally got it, their viewpoints are that of science.

RAM doesn't get it yet. I'll quote, emphasis mine:

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.

The scientific method is by definition unfit to apply to supernatural phenomena.

[Neruz]

You say practical, but you mean scientific. Those two are for you synonymous, but not for everyone.

No, by practical i mean practical.

If it has an effect upon the Universe, it is practical.

The question is simple: Does It Affect The Universe? Y/N

If Y, it can be measured.

If N, it is irrelevant.



The mere concept of something being 'beyond nature' by the way, is rediculous and shows a complete failure to understand what 'nature' is.

[Siquo]

Not really. If you choose to limit your view to the universe to "natural", that is your choice. That's ok.

Others choose something else. Your view is not The One And Only View.

[Neruz]

So what exactly is 'nature' then if not 'The Universe'?

[Bauglir]

Areyar: Re-read Bauglir: Science cannot prove it false if it's outside of the realm of science. Science pretends/believes/assumes that the supernatural does not exist. It's quite autistic like that. It's an entymologist that ignores the Gorilla because "that's not his field". That filtered view is what's gotten science where it is: disregard as much information as possible.

Hang on now, I didn't quite say that. I said that IF science is capable of saying anything about it, it's not a matter for religion to decide. What science is capable of explaining is what's important for this distinction, and if a scientifically valid method of describing a subject previously explained by religion is developed, too bad for religions. It's not a matter of faith anymore, and it's not supernatural anymore.

And an entomologist who ignores Godzilla is stupid and in for a crushinating, as is everyone who ignores a giant city-destroying monster nearby. Although he's probably not the best guy to be STUDYING Godzilla cause he lacks the background in reptiles, giant monsters, etc. Now, Mothra on the other hand...

[Neruz]

The mere concept of something being supernatural completely boggles the mind. How in the hell you have something that is 'beyond' or 'apart' from nature i do not know. It makes even less sense than the Christian God.

[Siquo]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

The mere concept of something being supernatural completely boggles the mind. How in the hell you have something that is 'beyond' or 'apart' from nature i do not know. It makes even less sense than the Christian God.

True. But the Christian God is. And it's apart from nature, but able to interact with it. However, because it is not part, we cannot research it using the scientific method. "Acts of God" are not predictable.

The danger that I think Bauglir is trying to describe is to attribute natural events to "Acts of God", which merely lessens our understanding of the Universe. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been an Act of God since the beginning of the Universe (which was the first and only Act she did).

[Andir]

That video sure pegged Siquo.

supernatural deals in fantasy and is opposed to reality, so yeah, science can only prove it false.

I disagree. As Tyson said(around 54th minute in), science can disprove fallacies like Earth being created 4000 B.C., but it's got nothing to say about whenever believing in Jesus will get you to heaven. It just doesn't concern itself with that kind of questions.
From what I gathered, Siquo's religiousness is centered around this personal affirmation of something good coming from his belief in God, and not around blind acceptance of every word in the scripture.

I can actually arguet hat science CAN deal with that kind of question.  Neuroscience.  As soon as scientists figure out how the brain works that throws fantasy, faith and all those traits you guys are referring to right out the window.

The scientific method is by definition unfit to apply to supernatural phenomena.

But it can disprove supernatural phenomenon when they analyze brain patterns and determine them to be driven by chemical responses rather than direct observation.