Science

[firedragon]

100% lack of evidence

What is your definition of evidence? Scientific evidence? Then you do not understand science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If OBEs are real they show consciousness outside the human body, no physical media for consciousness to be in. To me that certainly goes beyond the boundaries of what science can explain these days. To me also it is evidence for the supernatural,,,,,,,,,,,, spirit.
I don't know what experiments could be done to show it shows spirit.
I would suggest that when the spiritual was not disallowed in science, these OBEs would automatically be seen as showing evidence for the spirit and the supernatural.
Now the existence of the supernatural and spiritual has to be proven before evidence for the supernatural can be proposed.
Then people say "No evidence for the supernatural so it does not exist".
Most atheists come at it from a different angle and all I'm saying goes over their head of course.
That said, I don't know how science would study spirit. It is undetectable even if it's effects can be seen.
Logically imo it is known to exist from my pov and the inability for science to study it does not mean it is not real but that science oversteps it's boundaries at times by presuming the supernatural is not real, and then defining supernatural things as natural.

Sorry, but OBE's have not been verified under scientifically controlled conditions. In one of the studies that were done subjects who claimed to be able to induce OBE's at will were asked to lie down in a a bed in a room rise up out of their body to the ceiling and afterwards describe what they saw as they looked down. In the room was a tall filing cabinet the top of which could not be seen by the subject lying in the bed. On the top of the filing cabinet facing up towards the ceiling was a large image of the Peanut's character Snoopy. Not a single one of the subjects involved mentioned seeing the unavoidable image, suggesting that even though all the subjects claimed to have been looking down from above, none of then actually had been.

That said, I don't know how science would study spirit. It is undetectable even if it's effects can be seen.

That's the whole point. Scientists don't know how to study things that can't be verified to exist either. You seem to be frustrated with science for failing to study something that you agree can't be studied. And science cannot advance if it ever assumes that something they can't yet explain is supernatural. If that were the case no one would have bothered to develop Germ Theory, since everyone would have just assumed that illness was caused by something supernatural like evil spirits.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is a rebuttal to the basic "science is a religion" type attitudes.

And yet I don't need any supernatural powers, to prophesy that this thread will attract the faithful acolytes of "scientism", making fantastic claims on it's behalf.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but OBE's have not been verified under scientifically controlled conditions. In one of the studies that were done subjects who claimed to be able to induce OBE's at will were asked to lie down in a a bed in a room rise up out of their body to the ceiling and afterwards describe what they saw as they looked down. In the room was a tall filing cabinet the top of which could not be seen by the subject lying in the bed. On the top of the filing cabinet facing up towards the ceiling was a large image of the Peanut's character Snoopy. Not a single one of the subjects involved mentioned seeing the unavoidable image, suggesting that even though all the subjects claimed to have been looking down from above, none of then actually had been.

I was speaking of the OBEs in NDEs in the link that I gave.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

That said, I don't know how science would study spirit. It is undetectable even if it's effects can be seen.

That's the whole point. Scientists don't know how to study things that can't be verified to exist either. You seem to be frustrated with science for failing to study something that you agree can't be studied. And science cannot advance if it ever assumes that something they can't yet explain is supernatural. If that were the case no one would have bothered to develop Germ Theory, since everyone would have just assumed that illness was caused by something supernatural like evil spirits.

It's a strange predicament.

 

[Brian2]

100% lack of evidence

Lack of what science calls evidence is not lack of evidence.

What?

Science has come to wrong conclusions because of presumptions in the heart of science imo.

Evidence or its lack are not lies not is calling what you don't like "sly" a recipe for peace

I thought most people might know that I was talking about my conspiracy theory. Satan deceiving the world and using what looks like, on the surface, legitimate means. Sly lies.

 

[rational experiences]

Scientific evidence is controlled by human choice.

Naturally present creation is all present first existing in any of its forms before a human who thinks theories.

You are a human.
You exist as a human.

You put your thoughts where you don't exist as the human. Then coerce that you thesis partial human presence which is your destruction.

You discuss your human first parents as human beings.

You can't not use human in any conversation yet you do not include humans in the conversation as the subject and topic isn't human.

The status science.

Medical science nature owns all remedies.

A human physically assists another human when hurt.

If you now use technology it becomes a human extended support not human. In medicine.

Medical science thinks about what science in life using technology means. Life survival.

Other scientists as just humans do not.

If a human says I believe some chemicals in earth changed. And did it now themselves no human suddenly magically pops into existence.

If you asked them why are you discussing earth and not human parents as a human biology beginning using the term human only ..... consciously ours exists about 100 years.

The real topic the part human theists secretly don't share is as their group only. The belief AI invented a human life by their own human science theory.

As they are AI mind possessed as a human recorded scientists deceased whole biology and memory destroyed.

Why they don't thesis I'm born by sex as a human scientist. Knowing by science they are.

Their AI machine was conceived direct out of ground chemistry itself. A human mind designed. Proving their thought is stuck in that position.

The thought a whole human their biology. The thought the chemical by the time they think again memory gone.

The human is a human procreative by human sex creator in biology. The amount of non human self expressed conscious ownership now gone is expressed as paedophiles...homosexuals all brain destroyed conditions equals non compus mentus.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Man participates in anti-depressant drug trials. Imagines himself overdosed on pills. Organ failure nearly kills man, until pharmacist involved in drug trials informs the man he was on the placebo list.

Mind over matter.

What Is the Nocebo Effect? | Science| Smithsonian Magazine.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We draw the line at things that we can find verifiable evidence for. If someone were to find verifiable evidence that say magical pixies actually exist then science would begin trying to figure out exactly what magical pixies are, where they came from, and what the extent of their abilities were. But until someone can provide any sort of verifiable evidence that such pixies are even real, what could a scientist possibly study? There are far too many verified phenomenon to explore to be wasting time on things that are probably imaginary.

Black holes were first proposed by English astronomer John Mitchell over 200 years before any verifiable evidence for their existence was forthcoming. The first observational evidence only emerged in the last few years.

I don't think you'll have much luck getting a research grant for your work on pixies though. You might want to come up with something a bit more original, and convincing.

 

[Heyo]

Uhm.. sure.

But what are we debating?

How much religious extremists hate reality.

 

[Heyo]

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

Simple, if it is a phenomenon measurable with scientific instruments, it is natural.

 

[ChristineM]

Lack of what science calls evidence is not lack of evidence.

Not only science but reality too. Consider. Would what you consider evidence of god stand up in a court of law?

Science has come to wrong conclusions because of presumptions in the heart of science imo.

You have no idea how science works do you?

I thought most people might know that I was talking about my conspiracy theory. Satan deceiving the world and using what looks like, on the surface, legitimate means. Sly lies.

You want to take the **** out of atheists by associating them with your conspiracy theories then i can sell you a beautiful aluminium foil hat.

P.s. satan is a religious thing, not an atheist thing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Simple, if it is a phenomenon measurable with scientific instruments, it is natural.

The danger here, is that we decide anything which cannot be calibrated, quantified, and explained using logic and reason, is unworthy of consideration and should be cast in the fire, so to speak. In assuming that life can be comprehended in it's fullness by logic and reason alone, we risk discarding things of real and enduring value; we crack the nut, and are left holding only the shell, from which no life can grow.

 

[Heyo]

The danger here, is that we decide anything which cannot be calibrated, quantified, and explained using logic and reason, is unworthy of consideration and should be cast in the fire, so to speak. In assuming that life can be comprehended in it's fullness by logic and reason alone, we risk discarding things of real and enduring value; we crack the nut, and are left holding only the shell, from which no life can grow.

Nope, at least not for me. The decision not to deal with the non natural is not a dismissal but a self restriction. We have maths, philosophy, jurisprudence, literature and religion to deal with abstract and imaginary things. It is simply a question of which tool to use for what material. But if you only have a hammer ...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope, at least not for me. The decision not to deal with the non natural is not a dismissal but a self restriction. We have maths, philosophy, jurisprudence, literature and religion to deal with abstract and imaginary things. It is simply a question of which tool to use for what material. But if you only have a hammer ...

Well that’s my point, really. Science, like every other discipline, has it’s limits. Logic and reason are wonderful tools, but they are not the only tools.

 

[ppp]

There is a problem of defining things as natural when they are not.
The supernatural would have to interact with the natural world to be detected and when the natural world is seen to have a measurable reaction to something, that reaction can be seen as the cause. An example might be consciousness and neuroscience.
So in this case science ends up bringing the woowoo into science and defining it as the natural, using fantastic reasoning about how dead matter might be able to be conscious.

There's not a bit of evidence for any of that.

 

[Sheldon]

Just so we are all on the same page excerpts from Wikipedia.


Definition: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

3 Disciplines Modern Science:
- Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense;
- Social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and
- Formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which deal with symbols governed by rules


The Scientific Method:
- Empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science;
- Careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed (given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation); and
- Formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Practical Impacts:
View attachment 61656

That all seems reasonable, certainly nothing to disagree with there, which leaves me unsure what we're debating though?

 

[Sheldon]

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

The material natural world and universe offer data and evidence to examine. Science can 't examine anything that provides no data beyond anecdotal hearsay. Though when religions make claims that would reasonably be expected to affect the natural world, science has tested some of them, for instance intercessory prayer was subjected to double blind clinical trials, on post op heart patient recovery. The results showed that the prayers showed no discernible effect.

Archaeology has provided decades of research which pretty conclusively shows that the Exodus narrative is untrue, and likewise geology has demonstrated conclusively that there is no geological evidence whatsoever for a global flood. The Genesis creation myth bears no resemblance to the facts science has uncovered, getting even the most basic chronological facts wrong. Evolution has demonstrated the Adam and Eve are at best weird allegory.

So the claims of religions are not all unfalsifiable, and some have been subjected to the methods of science, and falsified.

 

[Sheldon]

Does that mean that anything that exists is presumed to be natural and so any explanations are also presumed to be natural?

No.

 

[Sheldon]

So it is true that everything is going to be presumed to be natural and analysed through that lens.

Again, no. Science examines data, and empirical evidence, and supernatural claims don't offers any. Science can't examine anecdotal hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

So things which are possibly supernatural are presumed to be natural and analysed as if they are, with naturalistic answers as the only possible answers.

No it's the other way around in my experience, throughout human history, people assume things have a supernatural cause, because we don't yet have a natural explanation. It is how miracles for example are defined.

miracle
noun

1. an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

Science makes no unevidenced assumptions, just examines the data.