Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Nathan Poe]

To name a few:Is time divided between BR and AR (Before Rowling and After Rowling)?

Would it make any difference if it were?

Does this book make predictions, then fulfill them with 100% accuracy?

As a matter of fact, it does.

Is this book JKR's diary?

Nope -- is the Bible God's?

Is this book sold in the non-fiction aisle at the local bookstore?

Vox populi, vox dei.

Is the greatest nation on earth currently founded on this book?

Nope -- nor is it founded on the Bible, as you well know.

Did JKR's only begotten son die for the sins of the whole world?

Nope -- and nor did anyone else's.

Does this book contain a "great commission"?

Sure -- buy the other books and go see the movies.

Some commissions are greater than others.

Does this book attract unbelievers to it, more than any other book?

Sure -- I thoguht the HP craze was a load of hooey until I sat down and read it, Now I can respect JKR's literary accomplishment.

Unlike some Christians, I was never a sucker for popularity.

Does this book generate followers who are part of a 'called out assembly' who meet once a week to worship its author?

Sounds like a creepy cult thing. Why would the followers of a book need to do such a thing?

Where two or more believers in JKR are gathered together, is JKR in their midst?

Does she have to be?

This is all well and amusing, AV, but I'm sure the rest of us have better things to take about than your personal beliefs.

 

[MoonLancer]

When Jesus wanted to walk on water, science stood aside and let Him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5j6cRtR1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldEByi_3a88

;p

If I wanted to walk on water, that same science is not going to stand aside fore me.

Really? it says it will in the bible.

In addition, if there was a tornado bearing down on us right now, or if someone was on their deathbed, I would be praying and asking God to tell science to take a hike.

Really? I would do something about it rather then rely on wishful thinking.

That 5% I'm talking about is where I disagree with science --- period; like macroevolution, deep time and the Big Bang.

lots tiny steps make big steps Lots of micro evolution makes macro-evolution. This is a demonstrable fact that you cannot refute with science. Nor would any respectable theologian use the bible to try and refute that as well.

 

[dad]

The topic started with this:

Wiccan_Child said:
Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?
It doesn't matter if it's an untestable one, but does it count as an explanation?
In that respect, is it a scientific hypothesis, albeit a woefully poor one?

With billions of believers over time, and witnessed miracles, and fulfilled scriptures, it counts. What needs to stand up and be counted here is Goddidnotdoitism...does that count as an explanation? No. Hell no.

 

[AV1611VET]

It can’t be done at all, irrespective of science. Can you or any other Christians here show us a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all regardless of whether science is involved or not?

Yes.

When Mary brought word to the disciples that Jesus had risen from the tomb, Peter and John sought (and obtained) empirical observation of the claim.

 

[3sigma]

Yes.

When Mary brought word to the disciples that Jesus had risen from the tomb, Peter and John sought (and obtained) empirical observation of the claim.

No.

Again you can offer nothing more in the way of support for this than the self-serving tales from an ancient, oft-refuted storybook of nonsense. It is dismaying that you and other Christians believe that the Bible offers evidence of anything more than the abysmal credulity of religious believers. People do not come back to life after being dead for three days and beginning to decompose. It’s pure nonsense.

 

[Ellinas]

Yes.

When Mary brought word to the disciples that Jesus had risen from the tomb, Peter and John sought (and obtained) empirical observation of the claim.

No! Empirical observation is not what is in your statement but here say! Someone else says that Peter and John saw the resurrected Christ. This would not stand in any court of law, let alone the scrutiny of science. Come on AV, I know you can do better than that!

As a Greek I cannot but admire your resilience and will to stand your ground. You do have extremely weird ideas and notions but you sure hang in there; and as one who has Spartan ancestors I can only commend you for your spunk!

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

May I remind you of what you said earlier?

It can’t be done at all, irrespective of science. Can you or any other Christians here show us a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all regardless of whether science is involved or not?

Make up my mind if you want to hide behind a clipboard or not.

Again you can offer nothing more in the way of support for this than the self-serving tales from an ancient, oft-refuted storybook of nonsense.

Either that, or I use the Bible.

It is dismaying that you and other Christians believe that the Bible offers evidence of anything more than the abysmal credulity of religious believers.

Either that, or we walk by faith.

People do not come back to life after being dead for three days and beginning to decompose. It’s pure nonsense.

In John 8 (I believe it is), when Lazarus died, Jesus waited two days on purpose before He began His trip to Lazarus' house with His disciples, so as to time it so They could show up when Lazarus had been dead four days.

This is generally believed to be because some at the time believed in what is called 'soul sleep', where a person's soul lingers in the body for 3 days after the body dies, then goes to its destiny.

Jesus waited until Lazarus had been dead for 4 days, so as to show His authority over 'soul sleep'.

 

[AV1611VET]

No! Empirical observation is not what is in your statement but here say! Someone else says that Peter and John saw the resurrected Christ.

Is the Mariana Trench "hearsay"?

 

[Nostromo]

Would he "just accept it", or would he, like me, accept it based on some pretty hefty observations.

1. Does this book make predictions, then fulfill them with 100% accuracy?
2. Is this book JKR's diary?
3. Is this book sold in the non-fiction aisle at the local bookstore?
4. Is the greatest nation on earth currently founded on this book?
5. Does this book attract unbelievers to it, more than any other book?
6. Does this book generate followers who are part of a 'called out assembly' who meet once a week to worship its author?
7. Where two or more believers in JKR are gathered together, is JKR in their midst?

Oh come on, I'm sure you can do better than that AV. Since when did the hefty observations of other subjects prevent you from dismissing them in a second?

Do the predictions of the Quran and their fulfillment make it true?
Is the Bible God's diary, or jesus'? Does a book that is a diary necessarily contain the truth and nothing but the truth?
There are books on many subjects sold in the non-fiction aisle that you believe are false.
The greatest nation on Earth is subjective. I'm pretty sure a significant portion of the world don't agree with you.
The Quran attracts more unbelievers than any other book, does your point still hold?
Same again for the weekly assembly.
And same again for the last one.

Is this how evidence and reasoning works now, by appeal to popularity?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You want irony?

How about those who say 'no' to God, while breathing His air?

If I was going to be consistent, if I said 'no' to God, and if I believe the air was his, then yes, I would be as much a hypocrite as the fundamentalist who says 'no' to science yet continues to use it (and, by proxy, believe in it).

Should I use the same language and tell them not to use a computer, but "get your own computer ex nihilo"?

If they believed computers (or the material needed to create them) were 'of God', and they claimed to reject everything to do with God, then they'd be hypocrites. Or rather, their claim would be false.

Likewise, if someone claimed to reject science, to say 'no' to science, it is trivial to demonstrate that they, in fact, don't say 'no' to science. They're either hypocrites, victims of cognitive dissonance, or outright liars.

What's the British equivalent of "right on"?

You are "spot on".

We'll make a Brit out of you yet .

What do you do with the "opposition"?

If science disagrees with the Bible, who gets the "pride of place" with you?

Science. I don't believe the Bible to be an accurate portrayal of, well, anything, unless science and history happen to agree with it (e.g., I believe there was an ancient Egypt complete with Pharaohs, but I don't believe in manna and talking bushfires).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Testability is probably the most fundamental feature of a scientific hypothesis.

Why?

 

[Ellinas]

Is the Mariana Trench "hearsay"?

We have video documentation amongst other empirical evidence of the existence of the Mariana Trench including radar mapping of the whole ocean floor of the earth's oceans. On the other hand the Gospels were written 300 years after the death of Christ. Hardly a first hand account of what happened and certainly not empirical evidence. Your turn

 

[3sigma]

Make up my mind if you want to hide behind a clipboard or not.
Either that, or I use the Bible.
Either that, or we walk by faith.

Quoting unsubstantiated nonsense from the Bible is worthless as sound evidence of anything except the abysmal credulity of religious believers. It hasn’t verified anything. In the religious context, faith is just a euphemism for gullibility misrepresented as a virtue.

This is generally believed to be because some at the time believed in what is called 'soul sleep', where a person's soul lingers in the body for 3 days after the body dies, then goes to its destiny.

More unsubstantiated nonsense. If you can’t post something sensible then why bother posting anything at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Gospels were written 300 years after the death of Christ.

Do you mean re-written, or written for the first time, as in 'autographed'?

The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

 

[Nostromo]

Why?

If there's no conceivable way to test something, it's essentially useless speculation. Science is about attaining knowledge, if there's no way to tell if you're right or wrong then you can't do that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If there's no conceivable way to test something, it's essentially useless speculation. Science is about attaining knowledge, if there's no way to tell if you're right or wrong then you can't do that.

How can we attain knowledge if we excise perfectly plausible (though perhaps not probable) explanations? No matter how untestable a hypothesis it may be, God may, in fact, have done it. If that is the case, we do ourselves no favours by rejecting such an idea outright.

I consider falsifiability to be extremely useful, both pragmatically and theoretically, but I don't consider it vital for something to be considered scientific. If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then it should be open to knowledge no matter what it is.

 

[BananaSlug]

It would seem you misunderstood me. I am sure I explained to you that the observations are considered anomalous because the Big Bang theory which cannot explain them is flawed, and that the Big Bang theory is flawed because of bad interpretation of red-shift. But I guess you missed all that.

It seems you misunderstood me. I am sure I explained to you that Plasma cosmology cannot explain the blackbody spectrum that the COBE satellite found. Many of the predictions made by BB cosmology have been verified by many satellites and ground-based observatories.

Furthermore, how would Plasma cosmology explain the lensing effect we see? Einstein predicted if his equation was right we would see "gravitational lensing". How would Plasma cosmology explain this?

If Plasma cosmology cannot explain the above observations it is because plasma cosmology is flawed.

That's not an explanation, that's an excuse. Besides, it cannot be an "explanation" and "anomalous" at the same time. If there is an explanation, then it's not anomalous. There is no explanation, that's why its "anomalous".

The explanation makes sense and is verified through Nos' experiment. That is all that matters.
Maybe you should start working on how plasma cosmology can explain the blackbody spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation...

Was it Sith or Nos? I thought it was Nos.

It was Nos, my bad.

He used neither the observed physics nor the math to create the image. So don't be misled by it, because I am not.

So then all of those experiments on earth to support "Plasma cosmology" do not count either. Explain how he didn't use "observed physics"?

 

[Nostromo]

How can we attain knowledge if we excise perfectly plausible (though perhaps not probable) explanations?

How do we attain knowledge using ideas which are untestable?

No matter how untestable a hypothesis it may be, God may, in fact, have done it. If that is the case, we do ourselves no favours by rejecting such an idea outright.
I consider falsifiability to be extremely useful, both pragmatically and theoretically, but I don't consider it vital for something to be considered scientific. If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then it should be open to knowledge no matter what it is.

Simply positing an idea does not increase our knowledge, even if it is the right one.

Since science is the systematic attainment of knowledge, an idea which offers no opportunity to gain any knowledge is unscientific, no?

 

[SithDoughnut]

How do we attain knowledge using ideas which are untestable?
Simply positing an idea does not increase our knowledge, even if it is the right one.

Since science is the systematic attainment of knowledge, an idea which offers no opportunity to gain any knowledge is unscientific, no?

We have come up with a number of things that are not particularly testable, generally because they fit in with the data that we have.

Take black holes for example: we have theories about them because they work within a theory we already had, the general theory of relativity. We can't test black holes but because they fit into the theory and there are other theories that have been created based on it, we can use that as evidence.

There are other ways of finding evidence than direct testing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do we attain knowledge using ideas which are untestable?

Because they are inferred by ideas that are testable. We have never empirically detected a spacetime continuum, but its existence is inferred because it is predicted by a theory that is empirically tested. Evidence by proxy, you might say.

Simply positing an idea does not increase our knowledge, even if it is the right one.

Agreed. However, as our theories become ever more refined, it is logical to presume that they are become ever more approximate to the truth: each theory better models reality, though it may just so happen to be that the 'real' model is simply unattainable through science. Nonetheless, we can get a good idea about what it looks like (and, thus, what wild conjectures are candidates for the Unknowable Truth™).

Since science is the systematic attainment of knowledge, an idea which offers no opportunity to gain any knowledge is unscientific, no?

See above. There are more subtle and roundabout routes to knowledge than direct acquisition (though they're rather more esoteric than anything we would find useful today).