Exiledoomsayer
Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Well thats not fair, who knows what great things we could have accomplished if our explaination of lightning had remained "God is angry"
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions? Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.
Well thats not fair, who knows what great things we could have accomplished if our explaination of lightning had remained "God is angry"
Oh science agrees with it, just not methodological naturalism.You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions?
Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.
But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.
You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions? Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.
Um, no. It is just impossible to actually go through and test any supernatural explanations. The only way to "find evidence" for a supernatural explanation would be to conclusively rule out any possible natural explanations. But even then, it wouldn't tell you which supernatural explanation was the correct one (that is a fundamental impossibility).Your pre-conceived notion is that nothing exists that is not natural or has a natural explanation. You make the claim that science didn't actually start to make progress until the supernatural was thrown out, yet without the supernatural you would have no science at all.
Your pre-conceived notion is that nothing exists that is not natural or has a natural explanation. You make the claim that science didn't actually start to make progress until the supernatural was thrown out, yet without the supernatural you would have no science at all.
Um, no. It is just impossible to actually go through and test any supernatural explanations. The only way to "find evidence" for a supernatural explanation would be to conclusively rule out any possible natural explanations. But even then, it wouldn't tell you which supernatural explanation was the correct one (that is a fundamental impossibility).
Possibilities, probabilities, creativity are suffer from the same deficiency as does the one above. All are non-empirical meta-physic explanations which not only self-refutes your claims, but proves that you use the very meta-physical premises you claim are impossible.And I might add that it is a practical impossibility to rule out all possible natural explanations, because there always remains the possibility that we simply weren't creative enough. In fact, when we learn new things, we often find that this is exactly the reason why we didn't have explanations for things in the past: we weren't creative enough.
If all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the foundation upon which science rests falls. The uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. Without the knowledge and certainty that the future will be like the past, we could not make generalizations, projections or predictions and the whole scientific methodology would be curtailed. In turn, scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about future chemical reactions, even the rotation of the earth or really anything else. Every premise that was produced by their own reasoning about any thing at any time or place would need to be validated by empirical evidence. Nothing past, present or future would or could be used to predict how things must or could be. The whole enterprise of Science would be impossible.Oh, and your claim that we can't have science without the supernatural is patently ludicrous. You might as well be claiming that we can't have pancakes without cows.
Actually, what I am saying is that the only way to find evidence for something is to find verifiable evidence, that is evidence that anybody can, with enough dedication, come back and check. This is of paramount importance because people make mistakes, all the time. If you don't rely upon verifiable evidence, then you end up guaranteeing you are wrong.So if I am understanding your position, you feel that the only way to find evidence is thru empirical evidence, or lack there of. However, not only do we need to rule out a natural explanation, we must rule out all other possible natural explanations to even possibly test supernatural explanations.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense.Possibilities, probabilities, creativity are suffer from the same deficiency as does the one above. All are non-empirical meta-physic explanations which not only self-refutes your claims, but proves that you use the very meta-physical premises you claim are impossible.
I'm pretty sure your own argument here is quite self-refuting on its own. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the uniformity of nature were not true, then scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything. And yet they do. All the time.If all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the foundation upon which science rests falls. The uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. Without the knowledge and certainty that the future will be like the past, we could not make generalizations, projections or predictions and the whole scientific methodology would be curtailed. In turn, scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about future chemical reactions, even the rotation of the earth or really anything else. Every premise that was produced by their own reasoning about any thing at any time or place would need to be validated by empirical evidence. Nothing past, present or future would or could be used to predict how things must or could be. The whole enterprise of Science would be impossible.
But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.
Science is a method. Your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the method of science.
Science is a method for discovering the truth about reality. At its core, it is about recognizing that people make mistakes with alarming regularity, and in order to discover the truth we have to accept and deal with that fact. The primary way that science deals with it is by noting that if independent people make mistakes, they are unlikely to make the same mistakes. So we can gain confidence in a particular scientific conclusion by checking it in as many different ways as possible and with as many independent persons doing the checking as possible.What is a method? Is it just a function? Do you have a method to drink your milk? If you do, then what is the thing which is not scientific?
Actually, what I am saying is that the only way to find evidence for something is to find verifiable evidence, that is evidence that anybody can, with enough dedication, come back and check. This is of paramount importance because people make mistakes, all the time. If you don't rely upon verifiable evidence, then you end up guaranteeing you are wrong.
Verifiable evidence for the supernatural is not possible.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense.
I'm pretty sure your own argument here is quite self-refuting on its own. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the uniformity of nature were not true, then scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything. And yet they do. All the time.
The fact that a lack of uniformity would make science impossible proves the uniformity beyond any reasonable doubt.
I'm still not getting why you think this somehow implies something supernatural.
What is a method? Is it just a function? Do you have a method to drink your milk? If you do, then what is the thing which is not scientific?
This is why science is carried out by large numbers of people. Any one person can only ever check one relatively small area in sufficient detail. We need very large numbers of people to validate the whole of science. And we also need systems in place to ensure that the people in any one field are doing their jobs and independently checking one another's work, and not grouping together around one or a small group of ideas without sufficient evidence to do so.So according to your premise, one must always find evidence via verifiable evidence. To find verifiable evidence one must be able to provide this evidence so that anybody can, with enough dedication come back and check it. Sounds reasonable, but tell me, are you able to verify every piece of evidence yourself? Does every belief that you hold come from evidence that you verified?
Um, that's not what I said. What I said was that verifiable evidence is not possible when it comes to the supernatural. This is a fundamental limitation, because the supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, and you can't ever investigate something that is outside of nature.Have you verifiable evidence that the supernatural is not possible. Please provide it.
I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:You are pretty sure my argument is quite self-refuting? How?
This is begging the question. You claim that uniformity of nature is true, that scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything and then declare "yet they do, all the time". Begging the question.
This is why science is carried out by large numbers of people. Any one person can only ever check one relatively small area in sufficient detail. We need very large numbers of people to validate the whole of science. And we also need systems in place to ensure that the people in any one field are doing their jobs and independently checking one another's work, and not grouping together around one or a small group of ideas without sufficient evidence to do so.
Ultimately, if you're skeptical that the experts in one particular field have gotten it wrong, then it makes good sense to learn about the work these people are doing and what arguments they have developed to support their conclusions. This leads to the other important aspect of science: scientists lay their arguments bare, for all to read. Anybody can, with sufficient dedication, enter into any field and learn enough about said field to critique it. Keeping science open in this manner helps to keep it honest.
Um, that's not what I said. What I said was that verifiable evidence is not possible when it comes to the supernatural.
This is a fundamental limitation, because the supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, and you can't ever investigate something that is outside of nature.
I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:
1. If there was no uniformity to nature, then nature would be unintelligible: it would not be possible to predict how nature would behave.
2. Scientists, working under the assumption of uniformity, are able to, time and again, come up with predictions that turn out to be true.
3. Point 1 demonstrates that point 2 is impossible unless the assumption of uniformity is, indeed, true. But point 2 is true, therefore the assumption of uniformity is true.
But you still haven't supported your claim that uniformity requires a god. And no, "think about it," isn't support.
...
You have to assume, a meta-physical activity, to begin to do science or validate evidence.
...
It is absolutely necessary to use the supernatural (meta-physical) out side of nature tools to investigate anything. Understand?
.... The point is that without that assumption which is supernatural in nature, that could not be demonstrated at all.
I have you just don't get it.
I trust you're treating this as more than just a standard facepalm?
You do know what 'maya' is, don't you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?