Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except it’s the opposite of that. If you can cite just one thing I’ve said (either here or ever) that implies advocacy for scientism though then by all means do it. If you can’t though (and you can’t), stop lying about that. 

Don’t know.

Don’t know.

No, they’re epistemically very different statements. I’ve never said the former, and the latter is at least debatable. 

I haven’t “suspended science” about anything. Stop lying.

How does science continue once you have jettisoned the principle of sufficient reason? Clue: it's a ''it doesn't'' rather than a ''Don't know''.

The whole science VS Religion thing is a bit of a crock, Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to have forgotten to withdraw and apologise for the lies you just told about me re scientism etc. Why is that?

How does science continue once you have jettisoned the principle of sufficient reason? Clue: it's a ''it doesn't'' rather than a ''Don't know''.

I haven’t “jettisoned” anything. I merely explained that currently the methods or knowledge (or both) of science cannot answer various deep questions about the universe. What I do know though is that relocating those same questions to a supposed god and claiming “it's magic innit” to get you off the same hook answers nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DORsBnflbs     

The whole science VS Religion thing is a bit of a crock, Hillside.

What “thing”? Religions are free to claim whatever they like. The “science VS Religion thing” only arises when religions try to do science – and always get it wrong. Aside from that though, science is as indifferent to the claims of religions as it is to claims of leprechauns, for reasons you really should have grasped by now.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So if conscious control of our thought processes is a reality - not an illusion, it would constitute evidence of our supernatural power to direct our own thoughts.

No it wouldn’t. Even if you could ever somehow demonstrate two separate “wes” – ie, one to do the “controlling” and the other to be controlled – still you’d have no evidence at all to suggest that the former was operating “supernaturally”. For that you’d have to demonstrate first that there even is such a thing as “supernatural”, and then you’d have to explain why the controlling could not happen naturally.     

Apart from all that though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You seem to have forgotten to withdraw and apologise for the lies you just told about me re scientism etc. Why is that?

I haven’t “jettisoned” anything. I merely explained that currently the methods or knowledge (or both) of science cannot answer various deep questions about the universe. What I do know though is that relocating those same questions to a supposed god and claiming “it's magic innit” to get you off the same hook answers nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DORsBnflbs     

What “thing”? Religions are free to claim whatever they like. The “science VS Religion thing” only arises when religions try to do science – and always get it wrong. Aside from that though, science is as indifferent to the claims of religions as it is to claims of leprechauns, for reasons you really should have grasped by now.     

Having Jettisoned the principle of sufficient reason it is painfully obvious you aren't sure what it is.
When you come by reason to the reason why there is something rather than nothing, ''What came before that in the heirarchy'' isn't a reasonable question.

''Science is indifferent'' is turdpolishspeak for science doesn't do God.
The mention of Leprechauns is a horses laugh fallacy which as it was your idea and no one elses you are loathed to retire it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Having Jettisoned the principle of sufficient reason it is painfully obvious you aren't sure what it is.

Why are you still lying about this?

When you come by reason to the reason why there is something rather than nothing, ''What came before that in the heirarchy'' isn't a reasonable question.

Gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

''Science is indifferent'' is turdpolishspeak for science doesn't do God.

Your weak vocabulary is letting you down again here. “Indifferent to” and “doesn’t do” are synonymous for this purpose.
   

The mention of Leprechauns is a horses laugh fallacy which as it was your idea and no one elses you are loathed to retire it.

No it isn’t, for the reasons I’ve explained to you often here and that you routinely just ignore. What then would be the point of correcting your mistake about this again?

Oh, and about your still absent apology for lying (again) about me and scientism…?   

[ProfessorDavey]

Once again, I wasn't  ideas saying ideas or thoughts in general are supernatural - I specified that the subject of specific ideas such as gods, which are included within religions, are described using the adjective "supernatural".

But those ideas and thoughts aren't themselves supernatural - all they do is posit the notion of something that is supernatural. The ideas, thoughts etc are entirely grounded in the natural and governed by natural laws.

It really isn't a difficult concept - try this as an analogy.

Imagine I write a ghost story - I come up with the idea, I write it down, I persuade a publisher to publish it, they produce hard copies and a kindle edition - people read it. What part of that is actually supernatural? None of it - every part of it is entirely natural, governed by natural laws. The book may posit the idea of something supernatural but that doesn't make any element of it actually supernatural.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are still Incorrect - concepts of gods ... are outside the scope of science to be able to investigate.

Actually we were discussing things that are outside of natural laws (i.e. supernatural) but nonetheless let's dissemble your argument bit by bit.

Science doesn't always detect things directly - in fact it is extremely common for science to determine the existence of something not through direct observation but by the effect that entity has on something else which science can detect. So a couple of example - long before we had scientific measurement systems able to actually detect the outer planets astronomers predicted their presence due to their effect on the orbiting of nearer planets.

Also a colleague of mine was part of a team that was the first to detect an earth-like planet orbiting another star. Did they detect it directly. Nope, we don't really have the equipment to do this. So how did they know it existed? Well because of minute reductions in the light they could capture from the star it orbited as it passed in front of the star.

So why is this relevant. Well it is possible there might be a supernatural entity that exists entirely separately from our universe, outside our natural laws and never interacts in any manner with our universe and natural laws. But that entity would be completely indistinguishable from something which did not exist. But that isn't how gods are described - they always interact with our universe, our natural laws in some respect - for example in creation, or judgement, or responding to prayer etc. Point is that as soon as that entity interacts with our universe and our natural laws it renders itself detectable by the scientific method. We may not be able to detect it directly but can infer its presence by the effect it has on things we can detect - just like my colleagues planet.

So any interventionist god renders itself able to be investigated by science.

... and judgement of people after their death and accountability after death are outside the scope of science to be able to investigate.

Note my emphasis.

For there to be something after there must be time and time is fundamentally embedded within the natural laws of our universe. So if there is time then we are dealing with the natural, not the supernatural.

[Sriram]

Actually we were discussing things that are outside of natural laws (i.e. supernatural) but nonetheless let's dissemble your argument bit by bit.

Science doesn't always detect things directly - in fact it is extremely common for science to determine the existence of something not through direct observation but by the effect that entity has on something else which science can detect. So a couple of example - long before we had scientific measurement systems able to actually detect the outer planets astronomers predicted their presence due to their effect on the orbiting of nearer planets.

Also a colleague of mine was part of a team that was the first to detect an earth-like planet orbiting another star. Did they detect it directly. Nope, we don't really have the equipment to do this. So how did they know it existed? Well because of minute reductions in the light they could capture from the star it orbited as it passed in front of the star.

So why is this relevant. Well it is possible there might be a supernatural entity that exists entirely separately from our universe, outside our natural laws and never interacts in any manner with our universe and natural laws. But that entity would be completely indistinguishable from something which did not exist. But that isn't how gods are described - they always interact with our universe, our natural laws in some respect - for example in creation, or judgement, or responding to prayer etc. Point is that as soon as that entity interacts with our universe and our natural laws it renders itself detectable by the scientific method. We may not be able to detect it directly but can infer its presence by the effect it has on things we can detect - just like my colleagues planet.

So any interventionist god renders itself able to be investigated by science.
Note my emphasis.

For there to be something after there must be time and time is fundamentally embedded within the natural laws of our universe. So if there is time then we are dealing with the natural, not the supernatural.

Maybe science does detect such interventions but you are unwilling to accept them as intelligent interventions. You prefer to dismiss them as random events and as emergent properties. The entire process of evolution and the development of humans can be seen as intelligent guidance. You just don't want to see it.

The entire Simulation hypothesis is an acceptance of intelligent creation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe science does detect such interventions but you are unwilling to accept them as intelligent interventions. You prefer to dismiss them as random events and as emergent properties. The entire process of evolution and the development of humans can be seen as intelligent guidance. You just don't want to see it.

The entire Simulation hypothesis is an acceptance of intelligent creation.

Hmm, what like the intelligent interventions that shook the earth or created light and noise in the sky that were ascribed to god, but science then was able to explain in perfectly natural terms.

So right back at you - perhaps the issue is not science (or rather scientists) being unwilling to accept supernatural explanations, but those of a religious persuasion being unwilling to accept natural explanations. But it isn't an equivalence as science bases its conclusions on actual evidence, not on faith, belief or superstition.

[Sriram]

Hmm, what like the intelligent interventions that shook the earth or created light and noise in the sky that were ascribed to god, but science then was able to explain in perfectly natural terms.

So right back at you - perhaps the issue is not science (or rather scientists) being unwilling to accept supernatural explanations, but those of a religious persuasion being unwilling to accept natural explanations. But it isn't an equivalence as science bases its conclusions on actual evidence, not on faith, belief or superstition.

You are merely describing mechanisms. How does that preclude intelligent intervention? You entire evolution theory is a process....a mechanism. It does not preclude intelligent intervention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The entire process of evolution and the development of humans can be seen as intelligent guidance.

I've corrected you on this several times without reply - why are you just repeating your same mistake now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are merely describing mechanisms. How does that preclude intelligent intervention? You entire evolution theory is a process....a mechanism. It does not preclude intelligent intervention.

Now you're moving the goalposts. No-one says that evolution "precludes intelligent intervention" - it just has no need for it. Similarly natural childbirth doesn't "preclude" the stork hypothesis - because it also has no need for it.     

[Sriram]

Sriram,

I've corrected you on this several times without reply - why are you just repeating your same mistake now?

    Your tone is that of a head master. You want me to stand outside the class.....??!! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Your tone is that of a head master. You want me to stand outside the class.....??!!

No, I want you to bother to reply to the explanations and falsifications you're given so you don't just repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Until and unless you do that you're just wasting other peoples' time. 

[ekim]

For there to be something after there must be time and time is fundamentally embedded within the natural laws of our universe. So if there is time then we are dealing with the natural, not the supernatural.

I suspect that Gabriella is trying to distinguish between the so called 'supernatural' deity which often has absolutes associated with it like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, almighty, ineffable, eternal. These tend to present it as being beyond the relativity of science.  'The judgement of people after death' she mentioned, might be the eternal delights of Heaven or eternal punishment of Hell.  I'm not sure how a scientist would measure this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I suspect that Gabriella is trying to distinguish between the so called 'supernatural' deity which often has absolutes associated with it like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, almighty, ineffable, eternal. These tend to present it as being beyond the relativity of science.  'The judgement of people after death' she mentioned, might be the eternal delights of Heaven or eternal punishment of Hell.  I'm not sure how a scientist would measure this.

A scientist (or anyone else) wouldn't measure it even in principle because there's no reason tho think there's anything to measure. Writing a notion down does not thereby make it real.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect that Gabriella is trying to distinguish between the so called 'supernatural' deity which often has absolutes associated with it like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, almighty, ineffable, eternal. These tend to present it as being beyond the relativity of science.  'The judgement of people after death' she mentioned, might be the eternal delights of Heaven or eternal punishment of Hell.  I'm not sure how a scientist would measure this.

But the point is that as soon as this purported deity interacts with the natural world in any interventionalist manner then this would become amenable to detection by the scientific method.

So in the same way that my colleague didn't measure the planet, he measured the tiny dip in light emission from the star as the planet crosses the path of the star, a scientist wouldn't measure omnipresence, but the measurable impact of that omnipresence on the natural world. And of course if the deity has no impact on the natural world then there is no meaningful way in which our world is different whether or not that deity exists (which doesn't seem to be what theists think, albeit deists may do).

But as scientist have studies the natural world not only have they failed to detect any 'footprint' of the potential supernatural impacting on the natural, they have also debunked countless examples where people have previously attributed natural phenomena to the supernatural, where we now know that they are entirely natural and completely explainable in natural terms.

[Sriram]

But the point is that as soon as this purported deity interacts with the natural world in any interventionalist manner then this would become amenable to detection by the scientific method.

So in the same way that my colleague didn't measure the planet, he measured the tiny dip in light emission from the star as the planet crosses the path of the star, a scientist wouldn't measure omnipresence, but the measurable impact of that omnipresence on the natural world. And of course if the deity has no impact on the natural world then there is no meaningful way in which our world is different whether or not that deity exists (which doesn't seem to be what theists think, albeit deists may do).

But as scientist have studies the natural world not only have they failed to detect any 'footprint' of the potential supernatural impacting on the natural, they have also debunked countless examples where people have previously attributed natural phenomena to the supernatural, where we now know that they are entirely natural and completely explainable in natural terms.

You have not explained anything without taking recourse to randomness and emergence. Both of these are intervention points. Science has identified them but you refuse to see it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

But the point is that as soon as this purported deity interacts with the natural world in any interventionalist manner then this would become amenable to detection by the scientific method.

One way out of that for the theist though is the god in hiding idea - ie a god who's real, but who has introduced natural processes such that you'd never know it. This is the creationist schtick of a god who buried all those fossils so as to fool us into thinking there were dinosaurs.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Both of these are intervention points.

Meaning?

[ekim]

ekim,

A scientist (or anyone else) wouldn't measure it even in principle because there's no reason tho think there's anything to measure. Writing a notion down does not thereby make it real.

I'm sure you are right.  My reply was to try and distinguish between the belief in the supernatural and belief in the natural.  They are just words often used to represent the unknown (often inner world) and the sensible known world.  It's a bit like how a distinction was once made between physical and metaphysical (beyond physical).

[ekim]

But the point is that as soon as this purported deity interacts with the natural world in any interventionalist manner then this would become amenable to detection by the scientific method.

That's right, but the believer might say that God as the prime mover initiated the interaction and the scientist discovered part of the process.  The scientist would say there is no evidence of a prime mover, it's just a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's right, but the believer might say that God as the prime mover initiated the interaction and the scientist discovered part of the process.  The scientist would say there is no evidence of a prime mover, it's just a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo.

He wouldn't therefore be talking like a Scientist who would stop at "there is no evidence" but your standard abusive new atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

That's right, but the believer might say that God as the prime mover initiated the interaction and the scientist discovered part of the process.  The scientist would say there is no evidence of a prime mover, it's just a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo.

By "believer" here I think you'd be thinking of a deist - someone who thinks there's a god (though not a god of any particular faith) who wound the clock and then disappeared, as opposed to a theist who thinks a god (or gods) interfere in human affairs on a sporadic basis - to help AB find his car keys for example.

In either case though, the problem with the "prime mover" notion is that is it's just the relocation of the question, not the answer to it. That's the "Fletcher's tunnel" problem that Vlad always runs away from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DORsBnflbs



 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's right, but the believer might say that God as the prime mover initiated the interaction and the scientist discovered part of the process.  The scientist would say there is no evidence of a prime mover, it's just a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo.

This assumption fails on assuming a believer cannot be a scientist and visa versa and that science is atheism.