Show us the evidence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

JeremyP said:



''If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable.  However, PN is the parsimonious position.'' 



Parsimony, JeremyP, is a virtue of empirical theories but not necessarily of philosophical theories.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.569.x/abstract

[Hope]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

[Gordon]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

It is all biochemistry, Hope: nothing more and nothing less. Doesn't mean it isn't often wonderful, and often not so wonderful, to be human since our biochemistry is fitted to allow us to think abstractly.

[Nearly Sane]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

Marinate therefore god hmmmm....

[Andy]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.

[Shaker]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

You seem to think that these things are not amenable to scientific investigation (and always in the background, unspoken but ever-present, is the implication that if science can't currently provide a comprehensive explanation for X, the immediate recourse as an explanation for X is woo of some sort), but I don't see any reason why not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.

Anybody?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

You seem to think that these things are not amenable to scientific investigation (and always in the background, unspoken but ever-present, is the implication that if science can't currently provide a comprehensive explanation for X, the immediate recourse as an explanation for X is woo of some sort), but I don't see any reason why not.

Philosophical naturalism is not science.

[Shaker]

I wasn't talking about philosophical naturalism, Vlad.

Do a search for philosophical naturalism and I'd be mightily surprised if anyone else has or had ever mentioned it independently - when I say independently I mean not in response to any post of yours. Only you do that, boringly, tediously, endlessly, obsessively so on and on and on and on and fucking on, even or especially when it has nothing whatever to do with the discussion at hand because you're woefully intellectually limited and it's your own private monomania, and because of that you simply don't know how to contribute to an online forum - this one, certainly - without it.

[Andy]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.

Anybody?

I must be doing something right if you don't understand me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't talking about philosophical naturalism, Vlad.

Do a search for philosophical naturalism and I'd be mightily surprised if anyone else has or had ever mentioned it independently - when I say independently I mean not in response to any post of yours. Only you do that

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

STPOYB

[Shaker]

Gibberish.

[jeremyp]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

If it is not falsifiable, there's no way to be confident it is true.

[jeremyp]

Parsimony, JeremyP, is a virtue of empirical theories but not necessarily of philosophical theories.

It's basically "don't believe stuff exists unless there is evidence that it does".

[jeremyp]

No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.

Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'.  What is beauty; what is love; what is being human?  Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.

Aha you're back. 

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

[Hope]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

[Gordon]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Well for a start I'm not aware that many scientists use the term 'proof', in that they regard scientific findings as being provisional, although in some cases their aggregated findings are so significant that they are unlikely to be wrong although there are still subject to revision if the evidence requires it. There is also the aspect of being clear about the methodologies they use to identify, analyse and extrapolate from the available evidence.

All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.



 

[Nearly Sane]

 

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

[Hope]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Gordon:

All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.

There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?

After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience.  Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas.  It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.

[~TW~]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.

 Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.

  20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.

 ~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.


And yet again you refuse to provide any. AGAIN.

[Nearly Sane]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.

 Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.

  20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.

 ~TW~

  And the argument by incredulity makes an early morning appearance

[Gordon]

Gordon:

All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.

There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?

After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience.  Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas.  It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.

So lets have the evidence for the supernatural presented alongside the methodology used to identify why this evidence can be safely assumed to empirically sound, where the method(s) can be shown to be robust enough to exclude naturalistic alternatives, such as human artifice.

That scientists are prepared to revise their theories in the light of new evidence or better techniques is one of it strengths: science, unlike religion, isn't a tablet of stone.

[~TW~]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.  The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.  After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.

 Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.

  20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.

 ~TW~

  And the argument by incredulity makes an early morning appearance

 Yes  and you are left potless without an answer as per usual 

~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

I note Hope's reference to academics and theologians. Given this I am sure he will supply me of details of a recognised university course in the UK where there is a methodology provided that allows evaluating supernatural evidence?