Can science investigate the God, the paranormal, or the supernatural?

[Michael]

empirically demonstrated claims is not equivalent to lab demonstrated claims which is really a subset of empirically demonstrated claims if you will.

There is a unique difference between them, the difference being a direct cause/effect demonstration with control mechanisms. Many humans for instance report an "effect" on themselves from something they call "God". Atheists often "doubt" the "cause" aspect. The same issue applies to theoretical physics.

and it's really still a false dichotomy. one is a self consistent mathematical model (albeit not empirically validated) with huge potential explanatory scope and the other is an imprecise word salad about a character or superpowers that ultimately has no utility.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily

Even spiritual concepts like "soul" enjoy "some" laboratory support in terms of their mathematical models making accurate predictions about the structures inside the human brain.

 

[Michael]

I don't have a problem with either.

Then quit complaining when I mention M-theory or God in a topic about science on a "Christian" website.

 

[AECellini]

There is a unique difference between them, the difference being a direct cause/effect demonstration with control mechanisms. Many humans for instance report an "effect" on themselves from something they call "God". Atheists often "doubt" the "cause" aspect. The same issue applies to theoretical physics.

i think you need to relearn how experimentation works, your understanding is confused.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily

Even spiritual concepts like "soul" enjoy "some" laboratory support in terms of their mathematical models making accurate predictions about the structures inside the human brain.

ORCH-OR severely lacks a mathematical model.

and this "quantum vibration" was discovered before, and max tegmark determined its decoherence time useless from a quantum computing standpoint and was shown to be much faster than the range predicted in orch or.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can science investigate the existence or properties of God, ghosts, goblins, fairies, unicorns, psychics, mediums (media?), auras, divination (tarot cards, etc), exorcism, faith/prayer healing, psychic surgery, etc, etc, etc?

No -- science is myopic.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then quit complaining when I mention M-theory or God in a topic about science on a "Christian" website.

So no, you are not going to act like an adult. Thanks for letting us know.

 

[Michael]

So no, you are not going to act like an adult. Thanks for letting us know.

Ya know...

If you're not interested in God or astronomy, this probably isn't the ideal forum.

 

[Michael]

i think you need to relearn how experimentation works, your understanding is confused.

I'm pretty sure I do know how it works actually.

ORCH-OR severely lacks a mathematical model.

What do you mean?

Quantum Consciousness

and this "quantum vibration" was discovered before, and max tegmark determined its decoherence time useless from a quantum computing standpoint and was shown to be much faster than the range predicted in orch or.

Do you have a reference?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya know...

If you're not interested in God or astronomy, this probably isn't the ideal forum.

Can you please tell me where in the opening post that astronomy was mentioned? Can you please tell me why you think that this thread is yet another thread for you to say the same exact things over and over and over that you say in every thread?

 

[Michael]

Can you please tell me where in the opening post that astronomy was mentioned?

I mentioned it as an example of where science explores supernatural constructs. Would you have preferred that I had used SUSY theory as an example?

 

[Loudmouth]

I mentioned it as an example of where science explores supernatural constructs. Would you have preferred that I had used SUSY theory as an example?

I would prefer that you try to act like an adult and not turn this thread into another one of your obsessions with bashing science on the same topics over and over and over.

 

[AECellini]

I'm pretty sure I do know how it works actually.



What do you mean?

Quantum Consciousness



Do you have a reference?

i stand corrected on the orch or math. thank you.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf here's a paper by max tegmark

We find that the decoherence timescales
(∼ 10−13 − 10−20 seconds) are typically much shorter than
the relevant dynamical timescales (∼ 10−3 − 10−1
seconds),
both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization
excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with
suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a
quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related
to consciousness in a fundamental way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Aww, I didn't want this to become a cosmology thread Can we stick to the philosophy of science, please? Namely, its ability to test supernatural whatsits?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No -- science is myopic.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

With regards to God, or all supernatural phenomena (telekinesis, etc)?

 

[AV1611VET]

With regards to God, or all supernatural phenomena (telekinesis, etc)?

WC, will all due respect, your bloated OP isn't worthy of a poll.

No matter how one replies, you have loaded the OP down with questions and sidebars that make discussion unfruitful.

I picked NO, because that is the answer that reflects my general belief.

 

[Michael]

Aww, I didn't want this to become a cosmology thread Can we stick to the philosophy of science, please? Namely, its ability to test supernatural whatsits?

Fine. The bottom line is science does such things on a daily basis by simply measuring the *effect* that a theoretical construct has on something else. It always begins with an affirming the consequent fallacy. It really doesn't matter what theoretical item of choice we're talking about, that's almost always how it's done.

For instance, if you want to scientifically study the *effect* that God has on humans, you do so based on their testimony, and you create mathematical models to "explain" various things using "God" as the presumed "cause", without respect to demonstrating the actual cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation.

 

[Strathos]

Some supernatural claims can be tested, some can't. Some could be tested if you were able to observe them and analyze them as they happened, but now can't be tested.

 

[AECellini]

Some could be tested if you were able to observe them and analyze them as they happened, but now can't be tested.

Then how could you know that they happened?

 

[Strathos]

Then how could you know that they happened?

If someone tells you they saw a ghost once you can't test it unless you were there.

 

[AECellini]

If someone tells you they saw a ghost once you can't test it unless you were there.

why would you consider the claim valid?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then how could you know that they happened?

You can't, not if they're untestable. But that doesn't mean they didn't happen.