Pathetic Science

[Doveaman]

Provide evidence for the supernatural. Anything supernatural.

The universe. It is natural and superior to all else. Therefore it is super-ior-natural.

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe. It is natural and superior to all else. Therefore it is super-ior-natural.

Nice --

 

[Maxwell511]

Modern scientists, on the other hand, came along in their arrogance......

Scientists are generally arrogant towards people that don't study their field. It comes across as a general attitude to people that don't understand their field and make grandiose statements of knowledge on the subject. Scientists are rightfully arrogant to people like you.

.......and myopic view of reality

Now here is where scientist are incredibly humble. We consistently ask realities opinion on our thoughts. Scientists don't even really trust their or other humans' logic on matters of reality.

The best analogy I can give to this is that Scientists are shy, geeky teens trying to chat up a really hot reality.

Geeky Teen Scientists: "So do like objects being attraction proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance?"

Hot Reality: "Yeah, you know a lot of the time, but sometimes I'm like Blah."

Geeky Teen Scientists: "Yeah I know, ""Blah"". Its like totally ""Blah"", so what do you think of spacetime curvature? I really like like be the derivative to your curve. "

Hot Reality: "Sorry? What was the last thing you said?"

Geeky Teen Scientists: "Mmmmmm.....I really like your bracelet. Where did you get it?"

Those are testimonies, not evidence.

Testimonies are evidence, will the laity stop saying this. The problem is that one cannot draw conclusions from too few data points.

For an example on how scientific theories can be built on testimonies look at Schizophrenia or alot of other mental health disorders. It is scientifically accepted that Schizophrenia exists and is a disease. The evidence for this was based almost entirely on the testimony of the sufferers.

In a more physics sense, Ball Lighting is now known to science but not understood because scientists took multiple data points of testimony as evidence for something.

Alien abductions are understood scientifically as manifestations of sleep paralysis, cos scientists took those testimonies seriously.

Dawkins attempted an almost scientific theory on religious testimonies called memes. I disagree with him but I am bias in the fact that I really don't like him.

The correct response to singular testimonies in a scientific manner is not to say that it is not evidence. It is that your testimony is not a sufficient data set to form a hypothesis. Give me more data.

Testimonies are a natural phenomena.

 

[Freodin]

Again -- unless you know what half the population of your local cemetery looks like, why would you recognize someone?

If I came to your house, and stopped along the way and picked a name at random from your nearest cemetery, then asked you to describe him; could you?

Yes, you raise a valid point.

And now answer my counterquestion: how did those "many" these dead appeared to know that these were "dead saints" instead of "someone who came to their house"?

 

[Jazer]

Scientists are generally arrogant towards people that don't study their field.

The funny thing is they are so busy to study their field that they often know nothing about anything else. I have a brother in law that has a PHd in Cisco. Yet he knows almost nothing else about computers. Ask him anything about photos or video and he knows nothing. Even though the average person has a little bit of knowledge about how to use the computer for that purpose.

 

[Tim Myers]

SCIENCE: [sahy-uh

ns]
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws of the physical or material world.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

SUPERNATURAL: [sü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl]
-adjective
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe or the physical or material world
2: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of physical or material world.

 

[Skavau]

Are you saying there is nothing about God that can be explained?

No, that the claim that God exists itself is unfalsifiable, undemonstrable and completely pointless. It has no knowledge value whatsoever.

It is an unknown purported to exist outside of reality by its proposers (when they actually agree briefly on what God actually is).

Maybe they saw something you can’t now see.

Or maybe they didn't, since said 'ancients' routinely attributed supernatural explanations to natural events that we now fully understand. Not to mention the inevitable contradictions from different accounts of observed phenomena. To take advice from the completely ignorant and frightened from thousands of years ago as to what is true over the advice of the profoundly educated with a relevant system of distinguishing what is true from not true is absolutely ridiculous.

Define reality. Because for some reason I’m thinking you don’t believe God is real.

To be real, a phenomena has to actually exist. God is often described as beyond our reality (with the loaded assumption that a supernatural pseudo-reality exists) and equally described as invisible, undetectable and untestable. What is the point of science caring that such an unfalsifiable self-contradictory concept exists?

If its natural state is superior to all other natural states it may be considered supernatural and is explainable.

This doesn't make any sense.

Utility?

Correction: Futility.

They are by definition unknown and as a consequence an exercise in futility.

 

[Skavau]

The universe. It is natural and superior to all else. Therefore it is super-ior-natural.

What a pathetic definition.

 

[SharpSolaris]

I think that a science cannot select anything. It goes wherever leads the facts. The scientist doesn't solve anything.

 

[Jro]

I think that a science cannot select anything. It goes wherever leads the facts. The scientist doesn't solve anything.

Ideally, yes, but scientists are people and make mistakes, lend their own interpretations to things, etc. It's a human enterprise, mistakes are made.

 

[Hespera]

The funny thing is they are so busy to study their field that they often know nothing about anything else. I have a brother in law that has a PHd in Cisco. Yet he knows almost nothing else about computers. Ask him anything about photos or video and he knows nothing. Even though the average person has a little bit of knowledge about how to use the computer for that purpose.

We have a prof here who has mild asperbergs. Brilliant guy, with an attention focus like a laser. Pretty near cant tie his shoes tho.

Most of the scientists i have been around tho are very well rounded people.

A unifying characteristic would be high intelligence and a lot of curiosity.

 

[AV1611VET]

And now answer my counterquestion: how did those "many" these dead appeared to know that these were "dead saints" instead of "someone who came to their house"?

Who said they knew who it was that came to their house?

Here's the passage in question:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Can you imagine someone reading that, turning to his wife and saying, "Hey, honey? Remember after Jesus arose; and that man that came to our house? You know what? He was from the graveyard!"

 

[AV1611VET]

The funny thing is they are so busy to study their field that they often know nothing about anything else. I have a brother in law that has a PHd in Cisco. Yet he knows almost nothing else about computers. Ask him anything about photos or video and he knows nothing. Even though the average person has a little bit of knowledge about how to use the computer for that purpose.

There are people in Mensa that can't balance a checkbook.

 

[Jro]

There are people in Mensa that can't balance a checkbook.

True story, the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to suffer from certain mental diseases. Explains a LOT about professors.

 

[Freodin]

Who said they knew who it was that came to their house?

Here's the passage in question:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Can you imagine someone reading that, turning to his wife and saying, "Hey, honey? Remember after Jesus arose; and that man that came to our house? You know what? He was from the graveyard!"

You still haven't answered the question: how would they know?

Can you imagine this someone reading that, turning to his wife and saying his sentence, and she responding "Don't be an old silly, dear, that was Josseles nephew Schmul from Damascus."

 

[AV1611VET]

You still haven't answered the question: how would they know?

They who? Matthew?

The same way he knew the Temple veil was rent in twain, even though he would never have been allowed near the entrance to the Holy of Holies.

It was probably relayed to him via an eyewitness, and verbal plenary inspiration took it from there.

 

[Freodin]

They who? Matthew?

The same way he knew the Temple veil was rent in twain, even though he would never have been allowed near the entrance to the Holy of Holies.

It was probably relayed to him via an eyewitness, and verbal plenary inspiration took it from there.

So an eyewitness told Matthew "hey, some guys from the graveyard showed up at my home!".

Question: how did THEY (the ones the dead people showed up at) knew?

In your last post, you told me that they might have read Matthew's work and concluded: "wow, this guy who showed up then... he must have been one of those dead people!"

Question: So how did Matthew knew?

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Freodin, if you want to keep this conversation going, you're going to have to dispense with the snide remarks, okay?

You're the one who doesn't understand, not I?

So an eyewitness told Matthew "hey, some guys from the graveyard showed up at my home!".

No -- someone visiting the graveyard reported it to Matthew, who was inspired to write it down.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't work.

I'm beginning to think now that you're just pulling my leg; so you'll have to excuse me if I don't answer some of your questions.

 

[Freodin]

You're the one who doesn't understand, not I?

I'm beginning to think now that you're just pulling my leg; so you'll have to excuse me if I don't answer some of your questions.

Exactly the kind of response I came to expect from you. Let's end it here... I know you wouldn't want to disappoint my expectations.

 

[Belk]

The funny thing is they are so busy to study their field that they often know nothing about anything else. I have a brother in law that has a PHd in Cisco. Yet he knows almost nothing else about computers. Ask him anything about photos or video and he knows nothing. Even though the average person has a little bit of knowledge about how to use the computer for that purpose.

What is a "PHd in cisco"? I have never heard of anyone having a PHd in a company before. Unless you are simply stating his job deals primarily with equipment from Cisco systems and he is only conversant with routers and the like?

And yes, human knowledge does tend to be compartmentalized. There is simply to much information for any one person to absorb it all.