Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I can think of lots of things!

You could make my telephone come to life and sing a hymn of praise to the fridge. Would you consider that to be natural, just because it is verifyable by multiple witnesses?

If I did it, how would you know it happened or I made you think it happened? Even if you got the entire world to observe it, how would you know it wasn't all just in peoples heads? Think, division by zero. Think, can now prove anything.

Starboy

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:19 PM

DD, if god existed we would be living in MatrixLand. There would be no point in reality or science or just about anything for that matter. Our job would be to live in our little world.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:44 PM

I dont see your point, are you saying that god and objective reality are mutually incompatible? I don't quite see why.

As for being 'made' to think I see a singing phone, we dont know we are not being 'made' to think what we are thinking now. Saying 'you dont know if god is making you see something fake' is not very scientific. Think Occhams razor. If a million people can confirm it repeatably, the best explanation is that it happened.

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:44 PM

DD thinking about this makes me a little crazy. The concept of god is just too wierd. It is like dividing by zero, it just doesn't make any sense.

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:50 PM

I think it makes sense, it just doesn't agree with the evidence.

Some conceptions of god are logically impossible, but there are some forms (particularly the literalist forms) that would be quite consistant if they did not contradict the evidence.

Example: the universe of miltons paradise lost would be quite possible as a universe (solid firmament, heaven and hell real places, god not really omnipotent but close enough, etc.). If the evidence agreed with it then so what I, but it doesn't so I don't. (fun book to read, though).

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I dont see your point, are you saying that god and objective reality are mutually incompatible? I don't quite see why.

As for being 'made' to think I see a singing phone, we dont know we are not being 'made' to think what we are thinking now. Saying 'you dont know if god is making you see something fake' is not very scientific. Think Occhams razor. If a million people can confirm it repeatably, the best explanation is that it happened.

DD, if you allow god into your thinking about the universe the unscientific becomes the common place. There is no end to the chain of what-ifs that can be constructed. There are no rules and there are no boundaries. From a scientific point of view it is a useless concept. Thinking about it too long will cause a brain meltdown. Come to think of it that could explain a great deal.

Starboy

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I think it makes sense, it just doesn't agree with the evidence.

Some conceptions of god are logically impossible, but there are some forms (particularly the literalist forms) that would be quite consistant if they did not contradict the evidence.

Example: the universe of miltons paradise lost would be quite possible as a universe (solid firmament, heaven and hell real places, god not really omnipotent but close enough, etc.). If the evidence agreed with it then so what I, but it doesn't so I don't. (fun book to read, though).

The god I am referring to is the Christian god, the infinite omnipotent god. Superior beings are no problem. You can think of them as space aliens if you like. I am talking about infinite beings.

Starboy

scigirl · 09-11-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Vanderzyden walks into a laboratory and presents an example of irreducible complexity to the naturalistic scientist.

V) I would like to see if you might be persuaded to at least consider a non-natural cause. There are potential benefits, not only for your work, but for you as a person.

Scigirl says: Ok, no problem. I'll consider and test any theory under the sun.

Show me how. Please, give me an example.

Thanks,

scigirl

(P.S. I'm still waiting for how your intelligent design, or other supernatural theories of human creation, will help me understand the brachial plexus of the arm (that is the nerve supply) better. If you don't hurry, than I'll have to switch it to the lumbar plexus, since we are moving right along in anatomy.)

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 06:27 PM

My claim is not that the supernatual could become part and parcel with science, just that it is theoretically possible to have a non-natural hypothesis scientifically confirmed by empirical evidence.

This would not lead to infinite chains of 'what if's ' about god, as science would still be restricted to empirical evidence for each claim.

Basically I am pointing out that a non-natural hypothesis is not neccesarily a non-empirical hypothesis.

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 06:32 PM

Scigirl is illustrating my point well. ANY hypothesis can be tested by science, as long as there is empirical evidence involved.

The hypothesis: 'everything in the universe is held together by the magic power of uri geller' could be empirically tested. Just observe the empirical evidence, and see what theroy fits is best: the UG magic theory or the natural theories of physics. Just because its not a natural hypothesis does not mean it cannot be tested empirically against the currently standing theories.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 05:19 PM	#172
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD, if god existed we would be living in MatrixLand. There would be no point in reality or science or just about anything for that matter. Our job would be to live in our little world. Starboy

09-11-2002, 05:44 PM	#173
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I dont see your point, are you saying that god and objective reality are mutually incompatible? I don't quite see why. As for being 'made' to think I see a singing phone, we dont know we are not being 'made' to think what we are thinking now. Saying 'you dont know if god is making you see something fake' is not very scientific. Think Occhams razor. If a million people can confirm it repeatably, the best explanation is that it happened.

09-11-2002, 05:44 PM	#174
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD thinking about this makes me a little crazy. The concept of god is just too wierd. It is like dividing by zero, it just doesn't make any sense.

09-11-2002, 05:50 PM	#175
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I think it makes sense, it just doesn't agree with the evidence. Some conceptions of god are logically impossible, but there are some forms (particularly the literalist forms) that would be quite consistant if they did not contradict the evidence. Example: the universe of miltons paradise lost would be quite possible as a universe (solid firmament, heaven and hell real places, god not really omnipotent but close enough, etc.). If the evidence agreed with it then so what I, but it doesn't so I don't. (fun book to read, though).

09-11-2002, 06:27 PM	#179
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	My claim is not that the supernatual could become part and parcel with science, just that it is theoretically possible to have a non-natural hypothesis scientifically confirmed by empirical evidence. This would not lead to infinite chains of 'what if's ' about god, as science would still be restricted to empirical evidence for each claim. Basically I am pointing out that a non-natural hypothesis is not neccesarily a non-empirical hypothesis.

09-11-2002, 06:32 PM	#180
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Scigirl is illustrating my point well. ANY hypothesis can be tested by science, as long as there is empirical evidence involved. The hypothesis: 'everything in the universe is held together by the magic power of uri geller' could be empirically tested. Just observe the empirical evidence, and see what theroy fits is best: the UG magic theory or the natural theories of physics. Just because its not a natural hypothesis does not mean it cannot be tested empirically against the currently standing theories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.