Evidence of miracles.

[AV1611VET]

This would imply that
1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural,

2/ the fundamental paradigm of science "as it is known" is in fact true and accurate,

3/ "credible" covers all possible means...

Any of these would indicate a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer, and taken together, borders on sheer hubris.

Number One is "a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer" to you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Number One is "a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer" to you?

"That which we cannot explain has no possible explanation"?

Absolutely arrogant.

 

[AV1611VET]

"That which we cannot explain has no possible explanation"?

Finish the sentence, professor.

You wrote it.

"... except via the ____________"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

...except via the supernatural.

Yes, very arrogant.

 

[AV1611VET]

...except via the supernatural.

Yes, very arrogant.

Ahem ... let's see here ...

We have a cigar-smoking Mickey Mouse Marvel Comics X-man saying supernatural explanations are 'very arrogant.'

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ahem ... let's see here ...

We have a cigar-smoking Mickey Mouse Marvel Comics X-man saying supernatural explanations are 'very arrogant.'

What's wrong with this picture?

Your complete inability to address the topic?

I mean come on, AV -- surely you of all people will agree that science is myopic, and just because it cannot find an answer right here and now, that doesn't mean there's no answer to be found...

Or do you find science to be omniscient and infallible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your complete inability to address the topic?

I mean come on, AV -- surely you of all people will agree that science is myopic, and just because it cannot find an answer right here and now, that doesn't mean there's no answer to be found...

Or do you find science to be omniscient and infallible?

Oh, I get it.

You're trying to steal my thunder from HERE

I basically said the same thing about science being arrogant for not following proper continuity procedures.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, I get it.

You're trying to steal my thunder from HERE

I basically said the same thing about science being arrogant for not following proper continuity procedures.

Actually, I never read that thread -- nor do I have any interest in doing so.

This is about recognizing the limitations of human knowledge... either you do, or you don't.

Which is it?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I simply point out from observation your entire philosophical platform as expressed from time to time on these threads is based on a set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, but they are none the less beliefs.

The atheism often expressed here is in essence coupled with scientific realism. It is unusual to see atheism without some other postulation for origin of life. “Don’t know “ or “ don’t care” is more logically consistent with agnosticism.

I have always thought science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life and existence , since the scientific model is just an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.

I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom.

Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science. It’s a belief. It doesn’t even constitute a valid scientific hypothesis, yet it is taught as a fact.

I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes very high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!

Ascribing a high probability to “unknown mechanism” as an explanation is farcical reasoning, however you arrived at it!

(As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton. )

Atheism is simply a non belief in any gods. An atheist may or may not believe gods don't exist as well. I have a non belief in gods. How can I come to any other conclusions about reality based on this non belief?

Atheists do have beliefs about other topics such as how life began, how the universe started etc., but these are believed based on other reasons. You cannot reasonably conclude that the big bang is true because you don't believe gods exist for example. Atheists can and some do believe in ghosts, magic, fairies etc. Atheism does not equal "scientific realism".

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is it?

Here they are again:

1. Keep looking.
2. Consider they simply didn't write anything.
3. Wait until your technology is sufficiently advanced to detect written documents underground.
4. Make sure you're not misinterpreting documentation you have already discovered.
5. Don't give up the ship prematurely.

I suggest that, before you consider "1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural," to be "arrogance," you make sure you aren't giving up the ship prematurely.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here they are again:

1. Keep looking.
2. Consider they simply didn't write anything.
3. Wait until your technology is sufficiently advanced to detect written documents underground.
4. Make sure you're not misinterpreting documentation you have already discovered.
5. Don't give up the ship prematurely.

I suggest that, before you consider "1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural," to be "arrogance," you make sure you aren't giving up the ship prematurely.

Which is precisely why it's arrogance -- because if we concede the supernatural, we decided not to "keep looking."

Or have you not yet realized that you're agreeing with me?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is precisely why it's arrogance -- because if we concede the supernatural, we decided not to "keep looking."

Can't do both?

Seems to me that the arrogant thing to do is to claim it didn't happen, despite the Bible saying otherwise.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can't do both?

Seems to me that the arrogant thing to do is to claim it didn't happen, despite the Bible saying otherwise.

How does one "look for" a supernatural event?

Because it seems to me that the supernatural is by necessity idiopathic, and can only be determined by exclusion. That is to say, we cannot perceive the cause, and have to rule out all other possibilities before accepting the supernatural as said cause.

To do otherwise would leave one wide open to all sorts of false prophets, charlatans, and con artists, would it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does one "look for" a supernatural event?

Because it seems to me that the supernatural is by necessity idiopathic, and can only be determined by exclusion. That is to say, we cannot perceive the cause, and have to rule out all other possibilities before accepting the supernatural as said cause.

To do otherwise would leave one wide open to all sorts of false prophets, charlatans, and con artists, would it not?

I'm addressing your post, where the supernatural has already been conceded.

Remember saying this?

Which is precisely why it's arrogance -- because if we concede the supernatural, we decided not to "keep looking."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm addressing your post, where the supernatural has already been conceded.

Remember saying this?

I remember saying it -- you see the word "if" in there?

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember saying it -- you see the word "if" in there?

Yes.

That's the part I'm addressing.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's the part I'm addressing.

Not with any clarity, it would seem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"That which we cannot explain has no possible explanation"?

Absolutely arrogant.

Just dumb. The history of scientific discovery is a history of repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just dumb. The history of scientific discovery is a history of repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.

Agreed.
Layperson: "________ can't possibly be done!"
Scientist: "Hold my beer..."


Arrogance is more likely to go along with the illusion of intelligence than with the genuine article.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes.

That's the part I'm addressing.

Which is precisely why we shouldn't concede the supernatural... because we should keep "keep looking."

And since science is myopic, it needs to look closely. Wouldn't want to miss anything...