Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

[joinfree]

.....There's no good evidence of consciousness beyond death, or for any of the Biblical supernatural constructs, so threatening me with them is meaningless.

If its one thing atheists laugh at and despise, it's Pascal's Wager. It's worse than Paley's Watch or Hoyle's Tornado.

The proof of the infinite pain:
1) if there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell, 2) So, the hell has no bottom.

 

[AV1611VET]

What exactly and specifically is problematic about an "infinite natural past"?

It doesn't exist.

It's just another example of science's decimal-point-on-roller-skates.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It doesn't exist.

1. how do you know?
2. why would it even have to exist in the first place?

It's just another example of science's decimal-point-on-roller-skates.

Science doesn't suggest an "infinite past" - natural or otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't suggest an "infinite past" - natural or otherwise.

Then why are you asking what's wrong with one?

 

[Freodin]

What is problematic, exactly, about an "infinite natural past" and why is this problem not present in an "infinite supernatural past"?

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

 

[Ygrene Imref]

There are God proofs, but in debates we call them "arguments". So, we are inviting unbelievers to argue (the word "argue" is like the "argu-ment"). Let the opposer-s call our proofs the "arguments". Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."?!

God is outside of physics, and really all natural science. Natural sciences study what their standard models deem natural, and they do no consider any type of infinity - in philosophy or reality - as a quality result or object to be studied. Physicists spend a great deal of work making sure results are normalizable (that, they do not blow up to an infinite number.)

Mathematics is about the closest there is to what one would consider a "proof" of a god, or God of Gods - partly because mathematics was born out of philosophy, which often entertains existentialism and the "world" beyond us.

In the end, math, physics, chemistry, poetry, surfing, boating, hiking, basketball, acting, singing, dancing, engineering, teaching, coaching, artists and musicians, etc. all constitute as ways to generate proofs of God. They are all different sides of the same "BOX" that translate to God, and the search thereof. They are all just different ways of communicating what we all seem to inherently long for.

It is just that in this paradigm, science and mathematics are *the* accepted mechanism for determining "truth."

 

[AV1611VET]

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

You write dictionaries, do you?

Is that why they had to rig a vote? to get the proper definition of "planet" into the dictionary?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

Not if you have experienced it first hand - and there were witnesses around...

Enough witnesses such that "we" had more degrees than an thermometer (i.e. we weren't uneducated, unlearned gullible people - and some of us had the scientific and mathematical mastery to qualify the phenomenon in an objective way.)

But, I think it is a good thing most people have no idea of real aspects of nature that make Vorhees seem like a masked monk.

 

[Freodin]

Not if you have experienced it first hand - and there were witnesses around...

Even than.

What did you experience? What happened? What did you conclude? What did you observe? What was the explanation?

"It was something supernatural!" is your answer... and there it stops. No explanation, no analysis, no further questions asked.

The - if I may use this term here - "scientific" question is always: "How does this work?" In many cases, there is no answer to this question, because of natural limitations.

The "supernatural" is making up an answer. "It is supernatural... it works!" is not an explanation. It is the capitulation before these natural limitations.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Even than.

What did you experience? What happened? What did you conclude? What did you observe? What was the explanation?

"It was something supernatural!" is your answer... and there it stops. No explanation, no analysis, no further questions asked.

The - if I may use this term here - "scientific" question is always: "How does this work?" In many cases, there is no answer to this question, because of natural limitations.

The "supernatural" is making up an answer. "It is supernatural... it works!" is not an explanation. It is the capitulation before these natural limitations.

I wouldn't call it supernatural; I don't think the supernatural exists. The very word itself is a misnomer. There are just some things that cannot be explained by a standard of academics right now. That hardly means something is unnatural, or supernatural. It also doesn't mean other people do not know exactly what the phenomenon is that is labelled "supernatural."

What happened to me was testable, but was not identifiable by an academic standard. The people in the room did this several times. Academia likely will not try to qualify it, because it is beyond their scope.

But, academia nor formal logic are the arbiters of truth. In fact, for situations like what happened with me, if I waited for science to vindicate me, or help, I would likely be seriously injured, or dead. It isn't really a joke, although I am glad you and others don't consciously experience things one would label "supernatural."

 

[Freodin]

I wouldn't call it supernatural; I don't think the supernatural exists. The very word itself is a misnomer. There are just some things that cannot be explained by a standard of academics right now. That hardly means something is unnatural, or supernatural. It also doesn't mean other people do not know exactly what the phenomenon is that is labelled "supernatural."

What happened to me was testable, but was not identifiable by an academic standard. The people in the room did this several times. Academia likely will not try to qualify it, because it is beyond their scope.

But, academia nor formal logic are the arbiters of truth. In fact, for situations like what happened with me, if I waited for science to vindicate me, or help, I would likely be seriously injured, or dead. It isn't really a joke, although I am glad you and others don't consciously experience things one would label "supernatural."

So, you think to criticise my statement on those who promote the idea of "the supernatural" based on your own experiences. The experiences of one who doesn't promote the idea of "the supernatural".

Somehow I am not impressed with your reasoning.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So, you think to criticise my statement on those who promote the idea of "the supernatural" based on your own experiences. The experiences of one who doesn't promote the idea of "the supernatural".

Somehow I am not impressed with your reasoning.

Neither am I, condisering that isn't my reasoning.

You expressed that people use "supernatural" as a way to hand wave an explanation for things that seem inexplicable.

Usually, this type of language has an implication on one's intelligence, so I responded to that by giving an anecdote about a real event of "supernature," and how the witnesses that experienced that were educated, well-to-do, rational and critically thinking persons who were not necessary Christian at the time.

You responded by asking me the "five questions" of quality, and reiterating your point that if something seems inexplicable, it is not satisfactory to claim "supernatural."

I, then, responded by giving an insight on my position on supernature altogether. I expressed that I do not believe the supernatural exists; I believe that it is all part of nature, and what we label as "super" is only "super" for the time being - until academia catches up and provides an explanation.

I wouldn't call it supernatural; I don't think the supernatural exists. The very word itself is a misnomer. There are just some things that cannot be explained by a standard of academics right now. That hardly means something is unnatural, or supernatural. It also doesn't mean other people do not know exactly what the phenomenon is that is labelled "supernatural."
​

Then, I described a bit of detail on what happened to me and the others present, in relation to the conclusion I made above:

What happened to me was testable, but was not identifiable by an academic standard. The people in the room did this several times. Academia likely will not try to qualify it, because it is beyond their scope.​

I ended proverbially addressing academia and the "supernatural," and explained my position especially concerning issues of the dangers of "supernature," and treating science as *the* truth basis for everything:

But, academia nor formal logic are the arbiters of truth. In fact, for situations like what happened with me, if I waited for science to vindicate me, or help, I would likely be seriously injured, or dead. It isn't really a joke, although I am glad you and others don't consciously experience things one would label "supernatural."​

If your point is that "the 'supernatural' is a cop-out word to describe something people believe happened that they also feel has no explanation immediately visible," then that has been addressed. That word to me is a misnomer, because all things that can and do happen are part of the natural world - there many not be an accepted explanation yet, but I believe there are plenty of people that know. It is not necessary to depend on academia for one's truth.

If you are critiquing supernatural activity, in that you believe it doesn't exist at all, then that is a different issue of refutation for which I did not make an argument.

 

[joinfree]

......
"It was something supernatural!" is your answer... and there it stops. No explanation, no analysis, no further questions asked. .....

The natural is measured by the Standard Instruments of Metrology. Why? Because they are unchangeable. So, the Instrument can correctly measure the Nature. The supernatural is measured by the God. Why? Because the God is unchangeable. The divine measure of things one gets from my Religion.

 

[Freodin]

Neither am I, condisering that isn't my reasoning.

You expressed that people use "supernatural" as a way to hand wave an explanation for things that seem inexplicable.

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

If you are critiquing supernatural activity, in that you believe it doesn't exist at all, then that is a different issue of refutation for which I did not make an argument.

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

 

[Freodin]

The natural is measured by the Standard Instruments of Metrology. Why? Because they are unchangeable. So, the Instrument can correctly measure the Nature. The supernatural is measured by the God. Why? Because the God is unchangeable. The divine measure of things one gets from my Religion.

Just consider where you get the natural measure of things from... and then compare it to the "divine" one. You will notice a major difference.

 

[Michael]

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

Why do you *only* blame religion for that behavior when science is equally guilty of it? Look how many different "explanations" there are for dark matter, or even gravity. Variation in belief, as well as a preference for the metaphysical is not limited exclusively to the domain of religion. It's a human thing.

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

But of course God *can* be defined *as* nature.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

I would conditionally agree with you. People definitely do use the "supernatural" card for anything from murder to mundanity. Colloquially, it is certainly hackneyed.

But, the misuse of the concept by people who are ignorant, or lack understanding, should not be used as a platform for dismissal of all things "supernatural." That is my distinction in point. Incidently, the incredulity that comes with supernatural is related to the misuse of the word.

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

join free said this:

The natural is measured by the Standard Instruments of Metrology. Why? Because they are unchangeable. So, the Instrument can correctly measure the Nature. The supernatural is measured by the God. Why? Because the God is unchangeable. The divine measure of things one gets from my Religion.​

I "liked" the post, because I agree with the philosophy of standards - accepted and reality. Nature is measured by metrological methods which are unchangable; mistakes happen in the application. Metrology, here, is *the* objective method of qualifying and quantifying nature.

Likewise, what one considers "supernatural" is measured by God, but I would extend it to everything is measured by God since He is unchangeable - precisely because there is no difference between supernature and nature. It is all nature dictated by engineering, at the very least. God, in this case, is *the* objective method of qualifying and quantifying [super]nature.

I also liked the comment because it is a kernel of tangent philosophy that coincides with my own philosophy.

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

I get that. My definition of natural includes what most everyone calls "supernatural," precisely because I have either experience it first hand (and scientifically evaluated it,) or I have extrapolated experiences in a path that compliment phenomenon I have yet to experience.

Hypothetical E.g.: I have seen a real leprechaun, therefore I can extrapolate my experience to entertain the existential reality of a troll.

In other words, if one "impossibility" exists, then all possible "impossibilities" must be entertained to exist.

Physics does not touch on anything related to supernature, because it is outside of their scope. But, since people look to physics as *the* truth, it becomes a danger of the mind how one approaches real phenomenon of what one calls "supernatural." As I said before, there are many people who are not physicists who know exactly what the full domain of "nature" is. And, in my personal case if I waited for academia to determine what phenomenon was befalling me (instead of doing "things" I knew to work for that particular situation,) I would be seriously injured, or dead.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Why do you *only* blame religion for that behavior when science is equally guilty of it? Look how many different "explanations" there are for dark matter, or even gravity. Variation in belief, as well as a preference for the metaphysical is not limited exclusively to the domain of religion. It's a human thing.



But of course God *can* be defined *as* nature.

I wasn't even going to touch on the incredible demerits of academia in relation to "proofs" of the natural, let alone the "supernatural."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Since when are philosophers considered prophets?

They proclaim stuff, don't they? So, in a manner of speaking, they are prophets. Sometimes they are even right.

 

[Michael]

Physics does not touch on anything related to supernature, because it is outside of their scope.

Meh. "Physics" includes concepts like multiverse theory, inflation, and dark stuff galore. What *empirically* (in the lab) differentiates God from dark matter or dark energy or a mutliverse?

I think it's a common misconception that physics doesn't dabble in the supernatural, but it actually dabbles in the supernatural all the time. Often it's the "effect" that can observed, but not the cause itself. For instance, QM defines a carrier particle of gravity (graviton) which has never been observed directly, yet it is still considered to be the 'cause' of gravity.