That's no fun (re: front-loading claims)

[tas8831]

I created a thread a few weeks back then got caught up in real life, and upon returning today, I see that thread went on for many pages then got closed before I could comment on any of the replies!
I might reply to a few of them in this thread...

 

[AV1611VET]

I created a thread a few weeks back then got caught up in real life, and upon returning today, I see that thread went on for many pages then got closed before I could comment on any of the replies!
I might reply to a few of them in this thread...

Okay, so someone says:

"God placed within each species genetic information."

And you want physical evidence for that.

Is that correct?

 

[SkyWriting]

I created a thread a few weeks back then got caught up in real life, and upon returning today, I see that thread went on for many pages then got closed before I could comment on any of the replies!
I might reply to a few of them in this thread...

I also have mentioned that anything "Supernatural" cannot be investigated by use of the scientific method. That's due to the definition of supernatural.

Now if God had a laboratory with technicians, then we could track the mistakes that the various technicians make and trace them back to God's Laboratory using the scientific method.

 

[tas8831]

THIS post is good.

 

[tas8831]

I also have mentioned that anything "Supernatural" cannot be investigated by use of the scientific method. That's due to the definition of supernatural.

Yes, insulate your beliefs at any cost.
I know that most adhere to that notion - to include most scientists. I do not share that position. While it is true that all attempts to test the supernatural via experiment have failed ('explained' via special pleading (God cannot be tested! Maybe God just didn't want to answer that prayer! All part of 'the plan'!) for the most part).

My position is that at least some of the claims of supernatural action should - even must - have left physical evidence or other corroboration. And when such evidence is not present, it should count as evidence against the supposed supernatural event.

Global flood, for example.

Now if God had a laboratory with technicians, then we could track the mistakes that the various technicians make and trace them back to God's Laboratory using the scientific method.

Like the ICR?
But they don't bother to do that kind of thing. No creationists do. They just try to nitpick real science, and they nearly always fail. Or they lie, and get caught doing so.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, insulate your beliefs at any cost.
I know that most adhere to that notion - to include most scientists. I do not share that position. While it is true that all attempts to test the supernatural via experiment have failed ('explained' via special pleading (God cannot be tested! Maybe God just didn't want to answer that prayer! All part of 'the plan'!) for the most part).

My position is that at least some of the claims of supernatural action should - even must - have left physical evidence or other corroboration. And when such evidence is not present, it should count as evidence against the supposed supernatural event.

Global flood, for example.

Like the ICR?
But they don't bother to do that kind of thing. No creationists do. They just try to nitpick real science, and they nearly always fail. Or they lie, and get caught doing so.

It's far more scientific than that. Nothing in science exists without confirmation.
If you claim anything is "supernatural" that means that you would not be able
to re-create the event. If you can't re-create an event then you have no evidence
to support your theory. Anything "supernatural" can only be taken on faith due
to the scientific method that requires reproducible evidence.

It's the scientific process that eliminates the scientific process from consideration.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you can't re-create an event then you have no evidence to support your theory.

That's not correct. If the event leaves evidence, there is evidence that you can compare with the expectations/predictions of your hypothesis. If your hypothesis predicts that you shouldn't see that evidence, it may be falsified; if it predicts that evidence, it is supported.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not correct. If the event leaves evidence, there is evidence that you can compare with the expectations/predictions of your hypothesis. If your hypothesis predicts that you shouldn't see that evidence, it may be falsified; if it predicts that evidence, it is supported.

And a "supernatural event" is unpredictable, by definition.
An event can only follow the pattern of other natural events.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And a "supernatural event" is unpredictable, by definition.
An event can only follow the pattern of other natural events.

I didn't say the event itself was predictable. But if an event leaves evidence, that evidence can be compared with the predictions or expectations of an explanatory hypothesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

I didn't say the event itself was predictable. But if an event leaves evidence, that evidence can be compared with the predictions or expectations of an explanatory hypothesis.

Which requires natural predictions or expectations. This rules out natural science.

You can only have natural predictions or expectations. That's all science is good for.

We can't scientifically test for a FLying Spaghetti Monster because we can't make assumptions on it's effect on the world. We don't know if it would show on Radar. Sonar, etc.

 

[Estrid]

Yes, insulate your beliefs at any cost.
I know that most adhere to that notion - to include most scientists. I do not share that position. While it is true that all attempts to test the supernatural via experiment have failed ('explained' via special pleading (God cannot be tested! Maybe God just didn't want to answer that prayer! All part of 'the plan'!) for the most part).

My position is that at least some of the claims of supernatural action should - even must - have left physical evidence or other corroboration. And when such evidence is not present, it should count as evidence against the supposed supernatural event.

Global flood, for example.

Like the ICR?
But they don't bother to do that kind of thing. No creationists do. They just try to nitpick real science, and they nearly always fail. Or they lie, and get caught doing so.

The supernatural never has been investigated successfully but that does not
define it as impossible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which requires natural predictions or expectations. This rules out natural science.

You can only have natural predictions or expectations. That's all science is good for.

We can't scientifically test for a FLying Spaghetti Monster because we can't make assumptions on it's effect on the world. We don't know if it would show on Radar. Sonar, etc.

If an event happens that leaves evidence, but you have no testable hypothesis that gives an expectation or prediction of that evidence, or predicts that evidence should not appear, then you have no explanation. IOW, the event is unexplained. In that case, you can speculate about an infinite number of potential causes, including the supernatural, but you have no evidence for them - they are just speculative claims.

By 'explanation' here, I mean some description that provides some specific understanding of the nature of the event and how it came about (among other things). An 'explanation' that can be applied to any unexplained phenomenon, such as, 'magic', 'rare random chance', 'the supernatural', etc., explains nothing; these are simply imaginative stickers to cover the lack of an explanation. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[SkyWriting]

If an event happens that leaves evidence, but you have no testable hypothesis that gives an expectation or prediction of that evidence, or predicts that evidence should not appear, then you have no explanation. IOW, the event is unexplained. In that case, you can speculate about an infinite number of potential causes, including the supernatural, but you have no evidence for them - they are just speculative claims.

By 'explanation' here, I mean some description that provides some specific understanding of the nature of the event and how it came about (among other things). An 'explanation' that can be applied to any unexplained phenomenon, such as, 'magic', 'rare random chance', 'the supernatural', etc., explains nothing; these are simply imaginative stickers to cover the lack of an explanation. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

I'll give an example. Lets say Jesus steps out of the boat and walks on water. You say "Let's check his feet and see if they are wet. Nope. not wet. So it didn't happen."

I respond with "Are you sure that "wet feet" is a good test?"
"ummmm no I guess not."

So science can only test what is natural.

 

[Estrid]

I'll give an example. Lets say Jesus steps out of the boat and walks on water. You say "Let's check his feet and see if they are wet. Nope. not wet. So it didn't happen."

I respond with "Are you sure that "wet feet" is a good test?"
"ummmm no I guess not."

So science can only test what is natural.

Thats hardly a demonstration nor anything about
whats natural and isnt.

You do not know what ( real) things cannot be put to a test.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thats hardly a demonstration nor anything about
whats natural and isnt. You do not know what ( real) things cannot be put to a test.

Is that a question?

 

[Estrid]

Is that a question?

Nah. A attempt to help you understand yourself

 

[SkyWriting]

Nah. A attempt to help you understand yourself

Maybe you know somebody who could do that? That would be helpful.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll give an example. Lets say Jesus steps out of the boat and walks on water. You say "Let's check his feet and see if they are wet. Nope. not wet. So it didn't happen."

I respond with "Are you sure that "wet feet" is a good test?"
"ummmm no I guess not."

So science can only test what is natural.

That's a case where the event left no evidence - not what I was talking about.

But without evidence, claims are unsubstantiated. At best, credence depends on the prior probability, i.e. inversely proportional to how extraordinary the claim is; at worst, Hitchen's razor applies.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a case where the event left no evidence - not what I was talking about.

But without evidence, claims are unsubstantiated. At best, credence depends on the prior probability, i.e. inversely proportional to how extraordinary the claim is; at worst, Hitchen's razor applies.

What I was explaining is that we don't know enough details to be able to predict such evidence.

Let me try again. "The whole world was covered with water."

So is that the whole known world for one person? We don't know.

 

[Estrid]

Maybe you know somebody who could do that? That would be helpful.

Figured Id be no good at it.