Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Hans Blaster]

Sure. I agree. But it's not those sorts of historically based phenomena that Kylie was citing: no, she was citing that "having faith to move mountains" is testable scientifically, even experimentally.

And I think you and I know this is erroneous for two pertinent reasons, one of which I already mentioned earlier.

If someone comes to me and claims they can move mountains, I will ask which mountain and wait for their check to clear. (I will expect to be paid for my time while I watch them move mountains with their faith.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If someone comes to me and claims they can move mountains, I will ask which mountain and wait for their check to clear. (I will expect to be paid for my time while I watch them move mountains with their faith.)

Sure, but that's not the specific notion that Kylie is articulating and focusing upon as something "testable."

Keep in mind that I studied Research Methods while at the university, so even if I may know less about it than you do, I am familiar with the textbook level of construction involved that goes beyond a kindergarten bulletpoint of the "Scientific Method."

I'm also very familiar with biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, so I'm fairly suspicious, too, of anyone claiming to have a fully correct interpretation of allegedly testable Bible verses, especially those pertaining to prayer.

 

[AveChristusRex]

So Jesus meant that we can pray for the mountain to move, and it will move, as long as it's God's will that the mountain moves, and it never is.

How convenient that you have a built in excuse to justify why these amazing things never happen.

Well, science has all the answers, except for the parts it hasn’t figured out yet, which are conveniently labeled as ‘unsolved mysteries’ or ‘future discoveries.’ Nor can't we see dark matter, can't directly detect it, and don't fully understand what it even is—but it's out there, holding the universe together, trust us!

How convenient that you have a built-in excuse for the gaps in the story, and that an unobservable 'something' fills in all the gaps in the equations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, but that's not the specific notion that Kylie is articulating and focusing upon as something "testable."

Keep in mind that I studied Research Methods while at the university, so even if I may know less about it than you do, I am familiar with the textbook level of construction involved that goes beyond a kindergarten bulletpoint of the "Scientific Method."

Keiko: Have you ever delivered a baby?
Worf: Once. In a holodeck simulation.

[dialog half remembered]

I'm also very familiar with biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, so I'm fairly suspicious, too, of anyone claiming to have a fully correct interpretation of allegedly testable Bible verses, especially those pertaining to prayer.

The interpretation of the text is not relevant. The claim was their faith could move mountains. I don't do tests of ancient texts. I test claims people make.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Keiko: Have you ever delivered a baby?
Worf: Once. In a holodeck simulation.

[dialog half remembered]

The interpretation of the text is not relevant. The claim was their faith could move mountains. I don't do tests of ancient texts. I test claims people make.

Take a look at what she's said up in post #1882 and tell me she's "merely" referring to some person's interpretation of the pertinent biblical verses. No, my understanding of what she's saying is that she's overassured about what it is she thinks Jesus, Himself, said about "moving mountains" in relation to faith and prayer.

 

[truthpls]

In this particular case.

Believers in the supernatural have long done their best to ensure that their claims are unfalsifiable, just so they can avoid having their claims tested.

But that doesn't mean that ALL supernatural claims are untestable.

Yes all claims are untestable by spiritual denying, supernaturally blind science. Evermore.

 

[Kylie]

I don't accept the inadequacy of your presentation of your test proposal, and I reject it for more than one reason. In fact, no one educated here has to accept it.

Maybe stick to your piano playing, Kylie? If you think you can take me on in debate, you BETTER have your sources lined up and in good order.

So far, all you have to offer are your own loose predilections (and grievances) by which to assert your supposed application of science. I'm not impressed. Do better.

Would you care to show how my suggested test is NOT feasible?

 

[Kylie]

Well, science has all the answers, except for the parts it hasn’t figured out yet, which are conveniently labeled as ‘unsolved mysteries’ or ‘future discoveries.’ Nor can't we see dark matter, can't directly detect it, and don't fully understand what it even is—but it's out there, holding the universe together, trust us!

You seem to be committing a fallacy typical of believers who don't understand science, in that you are treating science as a body of knowledge, much the same way that believers treat their holy text as a body of knowledge.

Science is not a body of knowledge.

Science is a system of investigation of the real world. It has been developed so it can be verified by others, and tested.

Oh, and I'm not aware of any scientists who claims we know for a fact what dark matter is.

How convenient that you have a built-in excuse for the gaps in the story, and that an unobservable 'something' fills in all the gaps in the equations.

I never said any such thing.

But I will point out that every single time we have had a gap in our knowledge that once answered by religion, but has now been filled through scientific investigation.

But if you'd like to point out a even a single example of a gasp in our knowledge for which the accepted answer was once a scientific answer but now is a religious answer, please, go right ahead.

 

[Kylie]

Take a look at what she's said up in post #1882 and tell me she's "merely" referring to some person's interpretation of the pertinent biblical verses. No, my understanding of what she's saying is that she's overassured about what it is she thinks Jesus, Himself, said about "moving mountains" in relation to faith and prayer.

Well, I was actually talking about ACR's interpretation about what Jesus said in that passage, that it should be interpreted not as "a promise that any specific prayer will yield the exact outcome desired, but an illustration of the power of faith in God to accomplish His will," so yeah, I actually WAS talking about some person's interpretation of the relevant Bible verse.

Show me that people can use your methods and all reach a single consensus on Biblical interpretation, and then we'll talk.

Until then, don't pretend that you are the authority on what counts as a valid interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

Yes all claims are untestable by spiritual denying, supernaturally blind science. Evermore.

Despite the fact that I gave you a specific example of a spiritual claim from the Bible that can be easily tested? Yes or no?

 

[truthpls]

Despite the fact that I gave you a specific example of a spiritual claim from the Bible that can be easily tested? Yes or no?

No. Land masses moving would be considered natural by science as would any miracle. They have nothing else to try to explain it with

 

[Kylie]

No. Land masses moving would be considered natural by science as would any miracle. They have nothing else to try to explain it with

There is no natural process that could result in a mountain moving from one continent to another.

Try again.

 

[AveChristusRex]

You seem to be committing a fallacy typical of believers who don't understand science, in that you are treating science as a body of knowledge, much the same way that believers treat their holy text as a body of knowledge.

Science is not a body of knowledge.

Science is a system of investigation of the real world. It has been developed so it can be verified by others, and tested.

Yeah I have to disagree with you there, your view that science is without its own philosophy is baseless and unprovable, and thus you cannot say definitively what "science" is.

I never said any such thing.

But I will point out that every single time we have had a gap in our knowledge that once answered by religion, but has now been filled through scientific investigation.

But if you'd like to point out a even a single example of a gasp in our knowledge for which the accepted answer was once a scientific answer but now is a religious answer, please, go right ahead.

You seem angry, as most in your position do, however I will note that no one has ever gave a thumbs up to those who answered gaps in knowledge with religion, nor are you giving the Catholic Church the credit it deserves for its scientific inquiry. Moreover, early 20th-century scientists like Einstein adhered to a steady-state model, the Big Bang theory, formulated in its published form by a priest and supported by evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation, suggested the universe had a finite singularity, which shifted many thinkers to the metaphysical Kalam Cosmological Argument, which argues for a transcendent cause for the universe's beginning.

Would this match your question of a scientific consensus being replaced by a more metaphysical or religious answer? Or are you just throwing things at the wall, and will disregard this factoid through dismissals and "not all scientists"?

 

[truthpls]

There is no natural process that could result in a mountain moving from one continent to another.

Try again.

Jesus said a mountain into the sea. Not transporting it across continents. He also said IF you had faith. That is nothing science could test. Do you have a faith gauge? Ha

 

[Kylie]

Yeah I have to disagree with you there, your view that science is without its own philosophy is baseless and unprovable, and thus you cannot say definitively what "science" is.

I go by this:

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You seem angry, as most in your position do...

No, not angry.

...however I will note that no one has ever gave a thumbs up to those who answered gaps in knowledge with religion, nor are you giving the Catholic Church the credit it deserves for its scientific inquiry. Moreover, early 20th-century scientists like Einstein adhered to a steady-state model, the Big Bang theory, formulated in its published form by a priest and supported by evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation, suggested the universe had a finite singularity, which shifted many thinkers to the metaphysical Kalam Cosmological Argument, which argues for a transcendent cause for the universe's beginning.

What makes you think that any of this is an example of religion providing answers which are accepted as true today?

All of those were based on the scientifically derived evidence.

There is no science pointing to the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument itself does not define God in anything more than the vaguest terms (designed to leave it unfalsifiable), and even if we accept it, it does not point to a deity like the God of the Bible.

Would this match your question of a scientific consensus being replaced by a more metaphysical or religious answer? Or are you just throwing things at the wall, and will disregard this factoid through dismissals and "not all scientists"?

No, it does not.

Let me give you an example. People once thought that mentally ill people were possessed by demons. Autistic children were regarded as "changelings" who had been taken by the Fair Folk and replaced with Fae children, that kind of thing. We know have a science based explanation for what is happening, and this explanation helps us provide better care to those people.

That is an example of where a religious/spiritual explanation was replaced by a scientific one.

Can you show me an example where a scientific explanation has been replaced by a spiritual one? Please say what people were attempting to explain, what the original scientific explanation was, what the current spiritual explanation is, and why that explanation is better than the previous scientific one.

 

[Kylie]

Jesus said a mountain into the sea. Not transporting it across continents. He also said IF you had faith. That is nothing science could test. Do you have a faith gauge? Ha

Are you serious?

You think that we couldn't see a mountain jumping up and throwing itself into the sea?

 

[AveChristusRex]

There is no science pointing to the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument itself does not define God in anything more than the vaguest terms (designed to leave it unfalsifiable), and even if we accept it, it does not point to a deity like the God of the Bible.

You're pointing to a fallacy, by asking a vague question then conditioning it to falsify the others point is not good. Also I have to ask, have you actually read the Bible? It isn't an insult, I was just wondering

I go by this:

The golden rule: I, I, I. With all due respect and love Kylie but I said science plural, not you, I know plenty of scientists who work off of philosophy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I was actually talking about ACR's interpretation about what Jesus said in that passage, that it should be interpreted not as "a promise that any specific prayer will yield the exact outcome desired, but an illustration of the power of faith in God to accomplish His will," so yeah, I actually WAS talking about some person's interpretation of the relevant Bible verse.

Oh, ok. Now that you're offering a qualification and clarification of your previous comments, I'll keep this distinction you've made in mind.

So then, just for the record. Am I correct in now saying that: You are ONLY attempting to scientifically test some one person's INTERPRETATION about faith, prayer, and the "power to move mountains." ????

When doing science, we have to be extremely specific and precise in identifying what it is we think we're "testing." We have to be able to identify our variables and as to what kind of variables they are. We can't just "do" an experiment. It's not that easy and simple. The following link offers a nice little heuristic I think we can keep in mind where variables are to be identified and assessed. More sources/links can be found that essentially agree with this one:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/variables

Show me that people can use your methods and all reach a single consensus on Biblical interpretation, and then we'll talk.

How much time do you have, Kylie? I have about three dozen DIVERSE scholars from various denominations of Christianity to learn from, comparatively. I'm pretty sure that only the most anti-intellectual of Christians (or Skeptics) will have a problem with the scholarly sources from which I've learned biblical exegesis over years. If those who want to discuss the topic of proper biblical exegesis are intelligent, I imagine they would be able to hash out a small set of common principles of interpretation we could all abide by, once the hashing around the table was done.

Do you want to learn? Now is your chance. You seem like an intelligent, even if strong-willed, person. I think you can learn.

Until then, don't pretend that you are the authority on what counts as a valid interpretation of the Bible.

Kylie. In your mind, what exactly would constitute an authority?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you care to show how my suggested test is NOT feasible?

I don't have to show what most scientists working in the mode of Methodological Naturalism already know (or should know).

The fact is: We can't control for God as a variable...................................................

Secondly, you need to keep the following pointers in mind when attempting to apply the so-called "Scientific Method":

How science works - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Juvenal]

Do you believe that God would fail Kylie's academic test?

Your God? Yeah. Mine, not so much.