Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[blü 2]

Im sorry. I dont wish to engage with some irrelevant matter you wish to discuss responding to someone else's problem. Apologies.

It's irrelevant to you that science has excellent reasons for concluding that the supernatural exists only as concepts / things imagined?

I would have thought that the manner in which the supernatural exists was basic to everything you're arguing, since if the supernatural doesn't have objective existence then its proponents have nowhere to base any argument that God is "real".

But since you don't think it's relevant, we can leave it for another day.

Go well.

 

[Sheldon]

Einstein said that “The programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists.” Whether there is a role or a requirement for a universal creative intelligence in that description, is a debate which may never be settled. But the declaration “God is dead, Science has usurped Him”, is without either meaning or value. It’s hollow rhetoric.

Einstein also said "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

So I'd be wary of offering him as an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

It's irrelevant to you that science has excellent reasons for concluding that the supernatural exists only as concepts / things imagined?

Oh I'm pretty confident he sees the relevance, that is manifest in the responses. Refusing to candidly address them seems a quite deliberate tactic to me.

 

[firedragon]

It's irrelevant to you that science has excellent reasons for concluding that the supernatural exists only as concepts / things imagined?

Irrelevant to the response I made to another person.

I think you have another topic in mind and are trying to steer this away to that. Nevertheless, no problem I will respond out of respect to what ever your next topic you wish it to be.

So what are these "excellent reasons science has" please? And how has science provided overwhelming evidence to this thesis? What is the falsification that was done? Please explain.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

I would have thought that the manner in which the supernatural exists was basic to everything you're arguing

What was the argument I made in this thread with the basis that "the supernatural exists"? Which post are you referring to?

 

[Sheldon]

How do you correct the errors in your religious beliefs?

The problem is far worse for theism, as they started from the assumption their religious texts were the immutable truths of an infallible deity. Science on the other hand follows where the evidence leads no matter what it finds.

As I said it's bizarre when theists make this accusation, as the ability to acknowledge and amend an error or mistake is somehow a flaw in reasoning, when the opposite is true. It's clinging doggedly to demonstrably errant nonsense that is flawed reasoning, and it is religions that do this, not science. Whatever lines of demarcation one wants to draw between religion and science, this example s definitely an own goal for religion.

 

[Yerda]

It's irrelevant to you that science has excellent reasons for concluding that the supernatural exists only as concepts / things imagined?

Can you elaborate a bit on this?

 

[Sheldon]

Anyway the day won't wait, so I'm out for now, as delightful as it has been.

 

[blü 2]

Irrelevant to the response I made to another person.

I think you have another topic in mind and are trying to steer this away to that. Nevertheless, no problem I will respond out of respect to what ever your next topic you wish it to be.

So what are these "excellent reasons science has" please? And how has science provided overwhelming evidence to this thesis? What is the falsification that was done? Please explain.

Thanks.

Just as I said in #11 ─ but here it is again:

Following an idea of Descartes, though with variations, I assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me about that world
reason is a valid tool​

and I assume those things because in each case I can't demonstrate it's correct without first assuming it's correct. However, anyone who posts here affirms by so doing that they agree with the first two, and fingers crossed they also agree with the third ─ so our conversations have a common basis. Indeed, I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't, explicitly or implicitly, agree.
​

That is, you share those assumptions, as your actions and words in posting here show. If you don't, please state which ones you deny.

So science sets out to explore, describe, and seek to explain the world external to the self, aka nature. And the vindication of science ─ as with all forms of reasoned skeptical enquiry ─ is that it works better than any other system we presently know of.
​

That's to say, there's a world external to the self, and we know about it through our senses, and it's also called nature, and reality, and it's where things with objective existence are found, not least your parents, air, water, food, shelter, society &c.

And it turns out that we find nothing supernatural in nature. The only manner in which the supernatural exists is as sets of concepts and imagined things in individual brains. And because these ─ unlike eg science ─ have no objective standard of truth, there are, for example, tens of thousands of versions of Christianity, and Christianity is only one of the world's thousands of religions.
​

If any of that is unclear to you, just ask.

 

[blü 2]

Can you elaborate a bit on this?

See #71.

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

[firedragon]

Just as I said in #11 ─ but here it is again:

Following an idea of Descartes, though with variations, I assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me about that world
reason is a valid tool​

and I assume those things because in each case I can't demonstrate it's correct without first assuming it's correct. However, anyone who posts here affirms by so doing that they agree with the first two, and fingers crossed they also agree with the third ─ so our conversations have a common basis. Indeed, I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't, explicitly or implicitly, agree.​

That is, you share those assumptions, as your actions and words in posting here show. If you don't, please state which ones you deny.

So science sets out to explore, describe, and seek to explain the world external to the self, aka nature. And the vindication of science ─ as with all forms of reasoned skeptical enquiry ─ is that it works better than any other system we presently know of.
​

That's to say, there's a world external to the self, and we know about it through our senses, and it's also called nature, and reality, and it's where things with objective existence are found, not least your parents, air, water, food, shelter, society &c.

And it turns out that we find nothing supernatural in nature. The only manner in which the supernatural exists is as sets of concepts and imagined things in individual brains. And because these ─ unlike eg science ─ have no objective standard of truth, there are, for example, tens of thousands of versions of Christianity, and Christianity is only one of the world's thousands of religions.
​

If any of that is unclear to you, just ask.

So this is a philosophical explanation you are making, not a scientific one. Correct?

 

[blü 2]

So this is a philosophical explanation you are making, not a scientific one. Correct?

It's the philosophy underlying science.

And it's factual in that we don't find the supernatural in the world external to the self ─ not a single authenticated example. Not even a testable hypothesis as to how the supernatural could exist in reality.

Not even a coherent concept of a real god.

 

[AlexanderG]

It's the philosophy underlying science.

And it's factual in that we don't find the supernatural in the world external to the self ─ not a single authenticated example. Not even a testable hypothesis as to how the supernatural could exist in reality.

Not even a coherent concept of a real god.

Right. Science makes predictive models (hypothesis), and then it goes out into reality and sees if it can confirm the new predictions made by the model. If so, then this is evidence that the model is accurate. Cosmic microwave background radiation, for example, was predicted by the big bang model long before we had the tools to actually observe and confirm its exists; the later confirmation was good evidence for the model being accurate (the hypothesis is now a theory).

When scientific theories are overturned by new theories, it is not that we suddenly found out that we were wrong, but rather that the scope of the model has become even broader, to accurately explain more. Every model has an explanatory limit or border. Newton's laws of motion could explain and predict the motion of the planets, but Mercury's orbit was slightly different than the model calculated. It frustrated and confused the astronomers. Only with Einstein's theory of relativity was Mercury's orbit accurately modeled, and along with the rest of the planets. It was more accurate than Newton's model, even though Newton's model is still accurate within more limited parameters. But the theory of relatively can't explain quantum mechanics, for example. And so we're still thinking and testing to find a unified field theory.

Religion has never done anything like this. "Fulfilled prophecy" is an exercise in post-hoc rationalization and the biased interpretation of vague and poetic language. There is no way to actually demonstrate that a prophecy was fulfilled, or that one interpretation is more accurate than another. We also know that:
1) the writers of the NT had access to the OT, and were personally motivated to make them match up
2) early church fathers wrote that lying was acceptable if it advanced the faith, and
3) We have no way to reliably or objectively confirm any of the supernatural claims or events that "fulfilled prophecy," in stark contrast to the repeatability of scientific findings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thats exactly what the atheist I responded to did. So you should speak to him and tell him to not base his belief in the category of undetectable things as his foundation.

You do. All theists do.

It's interesting how you have this double standard for belief. Your beliefs are fine because they're "metaphysical" (this word gets you off the hook for providing evidence, and even lets one become indignant that anybody would ask for any and call them ridiculous), but others ought not base their beliefs in undetectable things.

Asking for science in metaphysics is nonsensical.

And there it is.

Look at how easy that is, and it's logic you accept (presumably, since you offer it). Perhaps I should adopt the language of faith in my answers so as to be better understood by faith-based thinkers.

Metaphysics. Just gotta remember to use that word and to use it liberally. It's a free pass.

Can you show me in philosophy of science where scientists don’t take methodological naturalism as an axiom?

Why? Just believe it by faith. It is written (on this thread, if nowhere else). It is now scripture.

Besides, that's metaphysical. Stop asking for evidence. It's ridiculous for you to expect me to justify my beliefs when you know that there can be no evidence. It's unreasonable to request or expect any.

This is easy!

Atheism is true. That's a metaphysical statement, so don't ask for evidence.

Convinced yet?

 

[firedragon]

It's the philosophy underlying science.

And it's factual in that we don't find the supernatural in the world external to the self ─ not a single authenticated example. Not even a testable hypothesis as to how the supernatural could exist in reality.

Not even a coherent concept of a real god.

It was still a philosophical reasoning you gave, not a scientific one.

 

[firedragon]

You do. All theists do.

False.

And there it is.

Look at how easy that is, and it's logic you accept (presumably, since you offer it). Perhaps I should adopt the language of faith in my answers so as to be better understood by faith-based thinkers.

Metaphysics. Just gotta remember to that word and to use it liberally. It's a free pass.

Yet, the distinction is there. You may not want to accept it. Cant help that.

Why?

IT was asked from another person. Not you. So maybe you dont know the context of it at all.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not quite right. The consensus is that the universe as we know it had a beginning.

Not sure how that distinction has any relevance except as a philosophical digression tbh. Physicists deal with the issue of events which may or may not have happened before the Big Bang, by disregarding them since they can have no consequences. In any case, to talk about what may have been before time is essentially meaningless because it imposes a potentially misleading paradigm, namely a linear perspective on a phenomenon the true nature of which may not be linear at all.

Many models of the universe have been proposed which do not require it having had a beginning, but Hawking and Penrose pretty much proved the Big Bang theory 50 years ago, and all experimental and theoretical evidence since have confirmed their conclusions that the universe had a beginning. That all that is, once was not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sorry but that has no relevance to my post. Though it seems pretty obvious that one doesn't need to study all the Harry Potter novels, just to find the assertion wizards are real a dubious conclusion.

As I said religions (especially christianity) have traditionally claimed the bible to be the immutable word of an infallible deity. Of course I didn't nor am I claiming all theists think this, I shall leave the sweeping unevidenced generalisation to you when making observations about atheists.

I don’t know any Christians who make this claim for the Bible. I met an American pastor once who came to my school 50 years ago and made that claim, but we all thought he was insane.

 

[F1fan]

You are displaying propaganda atheists have developed just like evangelists of any other religion. It’s actually much worse. Lot of preaching.

So you think stating facts is propaganda?

Do you think stating what we can know about nature, especially when it conflicts with religious claims, is propaganda?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure how that distinction has any relevance except as a philosophical digression tbh. Physicists deal with the issue of events which may or may not have happened before the Big Bang, by disregarding them since they can have no consequences. In any case, to talk about what may have been before time is essentially meaningless because it imposes a potentially misleading paradigm, namely a linear perspective on a phenomenon the true nature of which may not be linear at all.

Many models of the universe have been proposed which do not require it having had a beginning, but Hawking and Penrose pretty much proved the Big Bang theory 50 years ago, and all experimental and theoretical evidence since have confirmed their conclusions that the universe had a beginning. That all that is, once was not.

It is quite a significant mistake. And no, what has been "proven" is that our universe as we know it, had a beginning. There could have been something before, some sort of cyclical universe. And then there are those that argue that the universe always existed, but began at the Big Bang.

Why does that matter? No existing model is evidence for God. No God appears to be necessary.