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.
The point is that there is no other way of demonstrating the concept of something being 'supernatural', other than by way of believing that its supernatural.Not sure what you mean. A belief is not a definition. Its a trust in somebody/something.
I do not know why you use the term "belief".The point is that there is no other way of demonstrating the concept of something being 'supernatural', other than by way of believing that its supernatural.
Humans are part of nature .. and so their beliefs must also be part of nature.
Therefore whatever humans believe cannot be 'supernatural'!
Sometimes I wonder whether people ever stop and think about what their words actually mean .. and how they got those meanings(?)
How would you test that model?A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural".
Its not a model. Its just explaining terms.How would you test that model?
An explanation of terms, is a model.Its not a model. Its just explaining terms.
How are these not explanations of the terms: strings, universe and multiverse?myst33 said:Model is for example the string theory. Or emergent universe. Or multiverse. Or the simulation hypothesis. The Big Bang. And similar.
A mental model, maybe. But not a scientific model required to be testable by scientific means.An explanation of terms, is a model.
How are these not explanations of the terms: strings, universe and multiverse?
(This question would be for the purpose of refuting my claim above).
And so, 'A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural" ', is maybe, a 'mental model', whereas a scientific model 'is testable by scientific means'.A mental model, maybe. But not a scientific model required to be testable by scientific means.
With some try, you can call almost anything a model, because everything is somehow modelled in our mind, even simple colors or words. (And maybe we are modelled in God's mind).And so, 'A being living in a higher dimension would be a supernatural being to us, if we regard our reality as "natural" ', is maybe, a mental model, whereas a scientific model is testable by scientific means.
They're still both models.
.. and "God's mind" there, is not also a mental model you have in your mind, then?With some try, you can call almost anything a model, because everything is somehow modelled in our mind, even simple colors or words. (And maybe we are modelled in God's mind).
Well, this forum is a confusing mixture of science and belief, however there is a well known truism: "the map is not the territory" ...myst33 said:But because we are in a thread about science, word definitions are not the "model" in the scientific meaning.
The two are not mutually exclusive alternatives.Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God....
Alas , your "evo" is an entirely creationist strawman, and has nothing to do with evolution.Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.
Of course it is science. Creationists that make this claim have demonstrated that they do not understand the concept of science. Evolution merely explains how life got to the form that we see today. It is neutral towards God.Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.
If you don't want us to make jokes about you, you shouldn't provide such excellent material.Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart. But the devil has all people blinded, and thinking he doesn't exists and doesn't have you in his hands.
Now joke how i am an ignorant and bronze age goat herding prophet believing person, but actually i have experienced God and the devil too and both exists.
Of course it is science. Creationists that make this claim have demonstrated that they do not understand the concept of science. Evolution merely explains how life got to the form that we see today. It is neutral towards God.
We call those inconsistencies "miracles".Science in numerous ways shows that certain literal Bible interpretations simply are not consistent with any relevant data.
.. and "God's mind" there, is not also a mental model you have in your mind, then?
Well, this forum is a confusing mixture of science and belief, however there is a well known truism: "the map is not the territory" ...
This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from "reality itself", yes?
But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation, because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings.
The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call 'a map', is a different kind of concept than what we call 'a territory', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, (or models), so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. .. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of "map" and "territory" are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think "maps" and "territories" are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!
Your mind has chosen 'supernatural' as meaning something which is not objectively testable .. it is therefore, just another 'mentally modelled' belief.
I dont see how jumping to one conclusion out of many possible can be called "science".Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science
"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.
Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."
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?