Total Posts:209|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific proof of God

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Not if you believe all that exists, exists in nature. In essence that the universe is the nature of God. Your statement only makes sense for those who believe God is unnatural.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:07:06 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Not if you believe all that exists, exists in nature.

That's called naturalism, which has nothing to do with God.

If you're not going to start speaking English then please find another thread to derail.
topoftheworld
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:59:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So explain how in the Bible (The most thoroughly documented book of antiquity in existence) there are tons of events that were studied and observed within the natural realm that can not possibly happen naturally? The definition of science is (knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
The only explanation is that there is a (super natural) God.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:59:06 PM, topoftheworld wrote:
So explain how in the Bible (The most thoroughly documented book of antiquity in existence) there are tons of events that were studied and observed within the natural realm that can not possibly happen naturally? The definition of science is (knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
The only explanation is that there is a (super natural) God.

There is no evidence of any kind to support the supernatural events in you holy book. Not one bit of contemporary, secular historical writing records a global flood (although lots of ancient societies existed at that time), no dead people getting up and walking around, no stopping of the sun for 3 hours, none of it. It's all either highly embellished natural events or total fabrication. Get a clue.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:59:06 PM, topoftheworld wrote:
So explain how in the Bible (The most thoroughly documented book of antiquity in existence) there are tons of events that were studied and observed within the natural realm that can not possibly happen naturally? The definition of science is (knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
The only explanation is that there is a (super natural) God.

First of all you need to prove that the events actually took place before you can prove the cause of them.

But let's just assume that one, say the resurrection of a dead guy, did in fact happen. In order to scientifically explain it, you have to (by definition) use the scientific method, which as I just described relies on methodological naturalism. In other words, if after observation and experimentation no explanation has been established, then guess what... no explanation has been established. A supernatural God does not magically become the explanation, and if you are claiming that it is then your explanation is not the result of science, it is the result of ignorance.
topoftheworld
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:02:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:59:06 PM, topoftheworld wrote:
So explain how in the Bible (The most thoroughly documented book of antiquity in existence) there are tons of events that were studied and observed within the natural realm that can not possibly happen naturally? The definition of science is (knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
The only explanation is that there is a (super natural) God.

There is no evidence of any kind to support the supernatural events in you holy book. Not one bit of contemporary, secular historical writing records a global flood (although lots of ancient societies existed at that time), no dead people getting up and walking around, no stopping of the sun for 3 hours, none of it. It's all either highly embellished natural events or total fabrication. Get a clue.

You claim no evidence. Sodom and Gomorrah was discovered south east of the dead sea the modern names are Bab edh-Dhra. Noah's ark was found in Turkey on mount Ararat. There are tons of giant skeletons being found all over the planet (nephilim). I can go on and on. I'll bet if you do some research you'll be shockingly surprised.
topoftheworld
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:50:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:59:06 PM, topoftheworld wrote:
So explain how in the Bible (The most thoroughly documented book of antiquity in existence) there are tons of events that were studied and observed within the natural realm that can not possibly happen naturally? The definition of science is (knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
The only explanation is that there is a (super natural) God.

First of all you need to prove that the events actually took place before you can prove the cause of them.

But let's just assume that one, say the resurrection of a dead guy, did in fact happen. In order to scientifically explain it, you have to (by definition) use the scientific method, which as I just described relies on methodological naturalism. In other words, if after observation and experimentation no explanation has been established, then guess what... no explanation has been established. A supernatural God does not magically become the explanation, and if you are claiming that it is then your explanation is not the result of science, it is the result of ignorance.

Not ignorance my friend, faith.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:26:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:07:06 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Not if you believe all that exists, exists in nature.

That's called naturalism, which has nothing to do with God.

If you're not going to start speaking English then please find another thread to derail.

Assuming God is part of the nature of things is not naturalist. It is Panenthiest. Sorry if you are closed to other views.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that you've just produced classic examples of the Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Silence, Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias, and focus on the fact that we don't have to know absolutely every single detail of nature to know things about nature and it's effects. Certainly, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest a god had anything to do with establishing the natural laws. You might as well say Wile E. Coyote established the natural laws, it has just as much validity. No one knows if a god did establish the natural laws, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god did, scientists are not going to be so stupid and arrogant to suggest that one did. That would be insane.

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

Why should it be?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:14:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that you've just produced classic examples of the Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Silence, Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias, and focus on the fact that we don't have to know absolutely every single detail of nature to know things about nature and it's effects. Certainly, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest a god had anything to do with establishing the natural laws. You might as well say Wile E. Coyote established the natural laws, it has just as much validity. No one knows if a god did establish the natural laws, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god did, scientists are not going to be so stupid and arrogant to suggest that one did. That would be insane

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

Why should it be?

Hahahahah look at you copying and pasting logical fallacies titles, did you get those from the same wiki page? oh little troll buddy you are so cuuute.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:21:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:14:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that you've just produced classic examples of the Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Silence, Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias, and focus on the fact that we don't have to know absolutely every single detail of nature to know things about nature and it's effects. Certainly, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest a god had anything to do with establishing the natural laws. You might as well say Wile E. Coyote established the natural laws, it has just as much validity. No one knows if a god did establish the natural laws, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god did, scientists are not going to be so stupid and arrogant to suggest that one did. That would be insane

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

Why should it be?

Hahahahah look at you copying and pasting logical fallacies titles, did you get those from the same wiki page? oh little troll buddy you are so cuuute.

And yet, those fallacies exist in your post. :)
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:48:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science?

No. Apparently you never understood what it was in the first place.

Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

No. What's your point?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

No, I mean that there is no scientific evidence based on the absence of scientific evidence.

BTW, you referred to it as "the God that established the natural laws". That sounds to me like knowledge claim, yet you just stated that our knowledge is incomplete and unable to account for it. Which is it?

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

None of which has any tie to the supernatural and thus is well within the realm of science.

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

The limitation is the supernatural. Assert whatever you want in that category. In the meantime we'll continue relying on methodological naturalism to learn about reality. When you discover a reliable method to test the supernatural please enlighten the rest of us.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:29:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:21:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:14:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that you've just produced classic examples of the Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Silence, Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias, and focus on the fact that we don't have to know absolutely every single detail of nature to know things about nature and it's effects. Certainly, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest a god had anything to do with establishing the natural laws. You might as well say Wile E. Coyote established the natural laws, it has just as much validity. No one knows if a god did establish the natural laws, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god did, scientists are not going to be so stupid and arrogant to suggest that one did. That would be insane

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

Why should it be?

Hahahahah look at you copying and pasting logical fallacies titles, did you get those from the same wiki page? oh little troll buddy you are so cuuute.

And yet, those fallacies exist in your post. :)

No they don't. You should read what those fallacies are before applying them to my statements.

Do you know what a bare assertion is? That's what you are doing. None of your conclusions can logically follow from your statements.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:17:02 PM, drpiek wrote:
Assuming God is part of the nature of things is not naturalist. It is Panenthiest. Sorry if you are closed to other views.

It's not a different view, it's a different label for the universe all so that you can pretend you're not an atheist.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:49:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:29:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:21:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:14:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science? Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

Let's forget the fact for a moment that you've just produced classic examples of the Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Silence, Begging the Question and Confirmation Bias, and focus on the fact that we don't have to know absolutely every single detail of nature to know things about nature and it's effects. Certainly, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest a god had anything to do with establishing the natural laws. You might as well say Wile E. Coyote established the natural laws, it has just as much validity. No one knows if a god did establish the natural laws, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god did, scientists are not going to be so stupid and arrogant to suggest that one did. That would be insane

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

Why should it be?

Hahahahah look at you copying and pasting logical fallacies titles, did you get those from the same wiki page? oh little troll buddy you are so cuuute.

And yet, those fallacies exist in your post. :)

No they don't. You should read what those fallacies are before applying them to my statements.

Do you know what a bare assertion is? That's what you are doing. None of your conclusions can logically follow from your statements.

You really need to study those fallacies so you don't use them so often. Your posts are littered with them. Why can't you make the effort? Too lazy?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:57:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:48:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 2:56:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things demonstrate a failure of understanding more than someone claiming they have scientific proof of God. Science is based on a foundation of methodological naturalism. That is, it utilizes only methods developed on the presumption that the natural world is all there is. So when someone says they have scientific proof of God they are literally saying that methods built on a presumption that the natural world is all there is, concludes that the natural world is not all there is.

The argument is self refuting.

Did I miss a major revolution in Science?

No. Apparently you never understood what it was in the first place.

Do we know all about nature and all of the effects it can possibly produce?

No. What's your point?

Oh you mean there is no scientific evidence based on our incomplete knowledge of nature to account for the God that established the natural laws.

No, I mean that there is no scientific evidence based on the absence of scientific evidence.

BTW, you referred to it as "the God that established the natural laws". That sounds to me like knowledge claim, yet you just stated that our knowledge is incomplete and unable to account for it. Which is it?

And if you are suggesting modern science is content for staying with in the naturalism methodology then you must have quite a vague definition of so, because there are scientist putting out papers talking about the life emerging from non-living material (never observed), the interiors of black holes, multiverse, ect..

None of which has any tie to the supernatural and thus is well within the realm of science.

So it's actually okay to create "scientific evidence" for stuff in nature as long as that stuff is not God.

The limitation is the supernatural. Assert whatever you want in that category. In the meantime we'll continue relying on methodological naturalism to learn about reality. When you discover a reliable method to test the supernatural please enlighten the rest of us.

Atheist tactic semantics.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

So Oh my gosh you have an unbeatable argument here. It's supernatural and unscientific until it is explained by science then it becomes "natural".

So nothing "supernatural" about things completely unverifiable and unobservable like the interiors of black holes or multiveres. No that stuff is scientific.

And if it can't be explained by science like "entanglement" well that's just an unexplained natural phenomenon.

Semantics. word games nothing of meat in your argument to lead to the finding of any knowledge just the circular reasoning established by the way the words are defined.

Do you get the point now?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your presumption is Nature as explained by Science are the only things that exist. I lack belief in this presumption, where are your justifications for such an assumption?

And why assume such then there is no "evidence" as you would define it, for trust, rationale, logic, numbers, ect..
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:16:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:57:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist tactic semantics.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

So Oh my gosh you have an unbeatable argument here. It's supernatural and unscientific until it is explained by science then it becomes "natural".

So nothing "supernatural" about things completely unverifiable and unobservable like the interiors of black holes or multiveres. No that stuff is scientific.

And if it can't be explained by science like "entanglement" well that's just an unexplained natural phenomenon.

Semantics. word games nothing of meat in your argument to lead to the finding of any knowledge just the circular reasoning established by the way the words are defined.

Do you get the point now?

You are the one who just got it. Except for the circular reasoning part. I suggest you look it up and learn something.

As far as the rest, notice that not only did I not redefine anything, you provided the definitions. So the next time one of your fellow theists makes the claim that they have scientific evidence for a supernatural God, I look forward to seeing you right there with the rest of us atheists asking them what the hec they are talking about.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When Scientific Evidence comes out to "infer" God then God won't be supernatural anymore.

And scientific evidence doesn't prove anything. And science is made up of tentative and changeable conclusions.

Science tells us how things are, not how they could be or how we should be.

And honestly what is the difference between multiverse to explain this universe and hypothesizing God made it?

It's because my conclusion uses the word God. It has nothing to do with the observable evidence, the logical arguments, science or any other crap you want to throw up. It has to do with the conclusion.

But honestly you don't have a problem science hypothesizing about impossible to test or verify things, no just when that thing is God. But let's pass papers around about the inside of black holes.

But a RATIONAL BELIEF does NOT have to be the hypothesis published in Nature.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:16:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:57:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist tactic semantics.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.

So Oh my gosh you have an unbeatable argument here. It's supernatural and unscientific until it is explained by science then it becomes "natural".

So nothing "supernatural" about things completely unverifiable and unobservable like the interiors of black holes or multiveres. No that stuff is scientific.

And if it can't be explained by science like "entanglement" well that's just an unexplained natural phenomenon.

Semantics. word games nothing of meat in your argument to lead to the finding of any knowledge just the circular reasoning established by the way the words are defined.

Do you get the point now?

You are the one who just got it. Except for the circular reasoning part. I suggest you look it up and learn something.

As far as the rest, notice that not only did I not redefine anything, you provided the definitions. So the next time one of your fellow theists makes the claim that they have scientific evidence for a supernatural God, I look forward to seeing you right there with the rest of us atheists asking them what the hec they are talking about.

God would not be supernatural if there was scientific evidence.

But maybe you missed my examples. There is plenty int he scope of science these days that more rightly belongs to philosophy and are "by definition" supernatural.

So I guess what makes something supernatural or not is consensus upon secular standards. yeah sounding so much more like an objective delineation of truth holding realms.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:03:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Your presumption is Nature as explained by Science are the only things that exist. I lack belief in this presumption, where are your justifications for such an assumption?

Not my presumption, just the predictable theist strawman.

That is the presumption of the scientific method. And we utilize a method based on that presumption because the supernatural is outside of the limits of science. And why? Because that is how the supernatural is defined. Don't blame me for that fact, blame the people who assert that supernatural beings exist. It's their definition.

And why assume such then there is no "evidence" as you would define it, for trust, rationale, logic, numbers, ect..

Logic and rationale are the tools we use to analyze evidence. It is incoherent to ask for evidence for them. Numbers can be demonstrated. Trust is a description of something we experience. None of this is remarkable.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:32:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:20:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
God would not be supernatural if there was scientific evidence.

Bravo.

But maybe you missed my examples. There is plenty int he scope of science these days that more rightly belongs to philosophy and are "by definition" supernatural.

You're correct. I missed those examples. Provide one example of something scientific that belongs in philosophy and is by definition supernatural. Hint: might want to read up again on those definitions first.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:33:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:24:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:03:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Your presumption is Nature as explained by Science are the only things that exist. I lack belief in this presumption, where are your justifications for such an assumption?

Not my presumption, just the predictable theist strawman.

That is the presumption of the scientific method. And we utilize a method based on that presumption because the supernatural is outside of the limits of science. And why? Because that is how the supernatural is defined. Don't blame me for that fact, blame the people who assert that supernatural beings exist. It's their definition.

And why assume such then there is no "evidence" as you would define it, for trust, rationale, logic, numbers, ect..

Logic and rationale are the tools we use to analyze evidence. It is incoherent to ask for evidence for them. Numbers can be demonstrated. Trust is a description of something we experience. None of this is remarkable.

Scientific method is not the end-all be-all of finding truth. There are deductive, abductive methods, and logic.

Science does not encompass all that is rational and logical. Science is a small circle inside the big circle labeled inductive, inside the bigger circle labeled logic.

Just because something is outside the understanding of an empirical method is not the whole of truths. Which is why as my examples have shown scientist, the people that do science, are more today then ever spewing forth transcendental hypothesis and unverifiable theories. Some of which are only evidenced by the results of a computer game programmed by the scientist.

You're still giving off the impression that if not scientifically evidenced then NOT real. But that is to completely ignore other rational and logical methods of investigation. And things that are "a proiri" and "Prima facie" evident to exist that are unexplained by science, making things like "genius" or "love" supernatural by definition. But no less unreal.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:39:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:32:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:20:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
God would not be supernatural if there was scientific evidence.

Bravo.

But maybe you missed my examples. There is plenty int he scope of science these days that more rightly belongs to philosophy and are "by definition" supernatural.

You're correct. I missed those examples. Provide one example of something scientific that belongs in philosophy and is by definition supernatural. Hint: might want to read up again on those definitions first.

mechanism of entanglement, abiogenesis, interiors of black holes,...

Are these things understood by science and within the laws of nature? no

Are these things verifiable and observable? no

seems like supernatural stuff to me. but I understand the consensus is against me. But i don't drink the kool-aid like you do.

And just repeating that I am right that scientific evidence would make God not-supernatural just shows that the argument is about word usage and not on the rationale or inference from evidence. Word play. that's what your post is about.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:42:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:33:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:24:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:03:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Your presumption is Nature as explained by Science are the only things that exist. I lack belief in this presumption, where are your justifications for such an assumption?

Not my presumption, just the predictable theist strawman.

That is the presumption of the scientific method. And we utilize a method based on that presumption because the supernatural is outside of the limits of science. And why? Because that is how the supernatural is defined. Don't blame me for that fact, blame the people who assert that supernatural beings exist. It's their definition.

And why assume such then there is no "evidence" as you would define it, for trust, rationale, logic, numbers, ect..

Logic and rationale are the tools we use to analyze evidence. It is incoherent to ask for evidence for them. Numbers can be demonstrated. Trust is a description of something we experience. None of this is remarkable.

Scientific method is not the end-all be-all of finding truth. There are deductive, abductive methods, and logic.

Science does not encompass all that is rational and logical. Science is a small circle inside the big circle labeled inductive, inside the bigger circle labeled logic.

Just because something is outside the understanding of an empirical method is not the whole of truths. Which is why as my examples have shown scientist, the people that do science, are more today then ever spewing forth transcendental hypothesis and unverifiable theories. Some of which are only evidenced by the results of a computer game programmed by the scientist.

You're still giving off the impression that if not scientifically evidenced then NOT real. But that is to completely ignore other rational and logical methods of investigation. And things that are "a proiri" and "Prima facie" evident to exist that are unexplained by science, making things like "genius" or "love" supernatural by definition. But no less unreal.

Never implied that if not scientifically evidenced then not real, I am implying that when it comes to assertions about reality... if not scientifically evidenced then not reasonable to accept as true. Not accepting something as true does not mean that you accept it as false.

There is nothing remotely supernatural about love. That is complete nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:46:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:42:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:33:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:24:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:03:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Your presumption is Nature as explained by Science are the only things that exist. I lack belief in this presumption, where are your justifications for such an assumption?

Not my presumption, just the predictable theist strawman.

That is the presumption of the scientific method. And we utilize a method based on that presumption because the supernatural is outside of the limits of science. And why? Because that is how the supernatural is defined. Don't blame me for that fact, blame the people who assert that supernatural beings exist. It's their definition.

And why assume such then there is no "evidence" as you would define it, for trust, rationale, logic, numbers, ect..

Logic and rationale are the tools we use to analyze evidence. It is incoherent to ask for evidence for them. Numbers can be demonstrated. Trust is a description of something we experience. None of this is remarkable.

Scientific method is not the end-all be-all of finding truth. There are deductive, abductive methods, and logic.

Science does not encompass all that is rational and logical. Science is a small circle inside the big circle labeled inductive, inside the bigger circle labeled logic.

Just because something is outside the understanding of an empirical method is not the whole of truths. Which is why as my examples have shown scientist, the people that do science, are more today then ever spewing forth transcendental hypothesis and unverifiable theories. Some of which are only evidenced by the results of a computer game programmed by the scientist.

You're still giving off the impression that if not scientifically evidenced then NOT real. But that is to completely ignore other rational and logical methods of investigation. And things that are "a proiri" and "Prima facie" evident to exist that are unexplained by science, making things like "genius" or "love" supernatural by definition. But no less unreal.

Never implied that if not scientifically evidenced then not real, I am implying that when it comes to assertions about reality... if not scientifically evidenced then not reasonable to accept as true. Not accepting something as true does not mean that you accept it as false.

There is nothing remotely supernatural about love. That is complete nonsense.

Is love attributed to a force not explained by science or natural laws? yep for some people.

Now you can pull out the science that shows attraction and chemicals and I would call that "lust" not "love".

I think there is more to loving my children then what a microscope or cat-scan can point to.

So yeah such "love" would be supernatural. Same goes for "genius".
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:52:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:39:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:32:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
You're correct. I missed those examples. Provide one example of something scientific that belongs in philosophy and is by definition supernatural. Hint: might want to read up again on those definitions first.

mechanism of entanglement, abiogenesis, interiors of black holes,...

Are these things understood by science and within the laws of nature? no

Are these things verifiable and observable? no

seems like supernatural stuff to me.

Then you need to look up the word, again. You are confusing being able to detect and test something via our current knowledge and abilities, vs. being able to detect and test something in principal. The nearest solar system was beyond our capabilities a few hundred years ago, that didn't make it out of the realm of science.

And just repeating that I am right that scientific evidence would make God not-supernatural just shows that the argument is about word usage and not on the rationale or inference from evidence. Word play. that's what your post is about.

No, it's about the dilemma of theists who attempt to support their assertions with rational argument. God is either supernatural or he is natural. If he is supernatural then by definition he is out of our ability to detect and test, therefore any claim to knowledge about him is unsupportable in principal. If he is natural then in principal he is scientifically verifiable. So when we ask for scientific evidence to support a scientifically verifiable claim and you don't have any, stop pretending that we are the ones who are being unreasonable.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:55:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:46:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:42:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
There is nothing remotely supernatural about love. That is complete nonsense.

Is love attributed to a force not explained by science or natural laws? yep for some people.

Now you can pull out the science that shows attraction and chemicals and I would call that "lust" not "love".

I think there is more to loving my children then what a microscope or cat-scan can point to.

So yeah such "love" would be supernatural. Same goes for "genius".

You should probably speak to a neuroscientist, and perhaps even a psychologist. I understand you want there to be something more, doesn't mean there is.