PARADOXES IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

[TB2]

Can you address my previous point about the scientific studies into ESP, intercessory prayer, and the like? Wasn't that science? Wasn't the prayer study published in a scientific journal?

Those are studies of human behavior and practices. Did the researchers conclude that their findings proved God?

(Did I miss your other references? I saw the one reference but I could only view the abstract. I wasn't able to see all the details of the study. Could you please repost the links? Thanks)

 

[Gus Bovona]

Those are studies of human behavior and practices.

That doesn’t eliminate studying a potential effect on humans from a supernatural force like prayer or ESP. That’s just what those studies did.

Did the researchers conclude that their findings proved God?

No because their empirical findings didn’t support that, not because they are not allowed to go there regardless of their findings.

(Did I miss your other references? I saw the one reference but I could only view the abstract. I wasn't able to see all the details of the study. Could you please repost the links? Thanks)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002870305006496

 

[TB2]

Please explain how science can test the proposition "God exists"

 

[Gus Bovona]

Please explain how science can test the proposition "God exists"

As a matter of logic, science being able to investigate the supernatural does not mean that science is able to investigate *any* supernatural claim, or some supernatural claim in particular, like "God exists." Do you agree? If not, where is the problem in the logic?

 

[TB2]

As a matter of logic, science being able to investigate the supernatural does not mean that science is able to investigate *any* supernatural claim, or some supernatural claim in particular, like "God exists." Do you agree? If not, where is the problem in the logic?

My answer is still the same. You're not going to get a supernatural causation based hypothesis past peer review

 

[Gus Bovona]

My answer is still the same. You're not going to get a supernatural causation based hypothesis past peer review

Whether science can investigate any supernatural claim is a different issue than whether it would get past peer review, especially given the particular reason it wouldn't get past peer review (whether that is due to the bias of the reviewers, or something essential in science as a discipline).

Your reply above is still talking about getting past peer review. Can you address the logic of science not being prevented from studying at least one supernatural claim because it might be able to study a particular supernatural claim? It's just question of logic. Can you address that logic?

 

[TB2]

Whether science can investigate any supernatural claim is a different issue than whether it would get past peer review, especially given the particular reason it wouldn't get past peer review (whether that is due to the bias of the reviewers, or something essential in science as a discipline).

Your reply above is still talking about getting past peer review. Can you address the logic of science not being prevented from studying at least one supernatural claim because it might be able to study a particular supernatural claim? It's just question of logic. Can you address that logic?

Supernatural claims can be empirically investigated (to demonstrate they are false). But empirical investigation cannot 'prove' that supernatural claims are supernaturally caused (there is no scientific test for the supernatural). The most science could conclude is "we don't know, we don't know how to explain it, we don't have a natural explanation for it."

But like I said, philosophers can use empirical (and other evidence) to argue for a supernatural explanation. Philosophers can go where scientists cannot.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Supernatural claims can be empirically investigated (to demonstrate they are false). But empirical investigation cannot 'prove' that supernatural claims are supernaturally caused (there is no scientific test for the supernatural). The most science could conclude is "we don't know, we don't know how to explain it, we don't have a natural explanation for it."

But like I said, philosophers can use empirical (and other evidence) to argue for a supernatural explanation. Philosophers can go where scientists cannot.

I agree to some extent with your first paragraph, but I’m a little concerned that your post still doesn’t address my question. I can’t imagine what the problem is. Even if my specific point is subsumed under your larger one, it feels like communication isn’t happening.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Supernatural claims can be empirically investigated (to demonstrate they are false). But empirical investigation cannot 'prove' that supernatural claims are supernaturally caused (there is no scientific test for the supernatural). The most science could conclude is "we don't know, we don't know how to explain it, we don't have a natural explanation for it."

But like I said, philosophers can use empirical (and other evidence) to argue for a supernatural explanation. Philosophers can go where scientists cannot.

I think a scientific test for the supernatural is not the only way for science to draw conclusions about the supernatural but I’ll have to give that more thought. There’s also a problem with the entire concept of the supernatural, but that’s too much for now.

 

[TB2]

I agree to some extent with your first paragraph, but I’m a little concerned that your post still doesn’t address my question. I can’t imagine what the problem is. Even if my specific point is subsumed under your larger one, it feels like communication isn’t happening.

I recommend the late Antony Flew's book There is a God, the world's most notorious atheist turned theist. He gives examples of how scientific information can be used in arguments for God's existence

 

[Gus Bovona]

I recommend the late Antony Flew's book There is a God, the world's most notorious atheist turned theist. He gives examples of how scientific information can be used in arguments for God's existence

Cool, thanks.

 

[Mikeuk]

As a matter of logic, science being able to investigate the supernatural does not mean that science is able to investigate *any* supernatural claim, or some supernatural claim in particular, like "God exists." Do you agree? If not, where is the problem in the logic?

The problems are two fold.

1/ Supernatural is a subjective definition. Natural "cause" is a misnomer.
If it happens in nature it is natural. Including God , or any other being, acting in nature, if or when He acts in nature!
Natural "cause" is not cause at all. It is simply an observation that the universe is doing what it usually does. For example - the law of gravity is observation. It behaves as inverse square law. It does not say why gravity exists, or why gravity acts with the pattern it does. We do not know what gravity "is" or what CAUSES the effect we call gravity. We can only model how it normally behaves. ( space time warp is simply another canonical way of describing the math of observation)
So it is not a cause , it is an observation, of the universe doing what it usually does . It is also about what projects into our limited senses! Stuff can exist that does not (normally) impact our senses. The fact an expermental law is valid for the data set so far, does not mean either it has always done it, or will always do it either! Indeed - round galaxy shapes the math does not work! we call the error dark matter, which is a high sounding name for the math doesnt work!

2/ Science is axiomatic limited to what man put into it. The model can only declare apple or orange, if they are already defined . Since "godness" has no definition, the model cannot conclude God, whether or not God is real or caused a behaviour.

So all you can actually say in testing extraordinary behaviour is...
a- it is not doing what it normally does
b- it is violating fundamental axioms of the existing model, and cannot be reconciled without scrapping parts of the model and starting again.
( this requirement is to challenge those who say ... it is only a matter of time before science "iexplains" it eg Take the "time arrow" on prophecy, so far ahead chaos prevents prediction, and so unusual it cannot be guessed.)

-c that it does so in a context associated with Christianity.

That is all you can determine. A limitation of science not God. The rest is belief.
Incidentally - There is PLENTY that meets those tests..

Do they "prove" God? no - science cannot do that, without "godness" defined in the model science cannot declare it.
There may yet be a test for "jesus christness" (the man not God) , - watch this space!

They are "evidence" not proof.

Can you say all "ordinary" behaviour is therefore not driven by God? No... cant do that either!

 

[Gus Bovona]

The problems are two fold.

1/ Supernatural is a subjective definition. Natural "cause" is a misnomer.
If it happens in nature it is natural. Including God , or any other being, acting in nature, if or when He acts in nature!
Natural "cause" is not cause at all. It is simply an observation that the universe is doing what it usually does. For example - the law of gravity is observation. It behaves as inverse square law. It does not say why gravity exists, or why gravity acts with the pattern it does. We do not know what gravity "is" or what CAUSES the effect we call gravity. We can only model how it normally behaves. ( space time warp is simply another canonical way of describing the math of observation)
So it is not a cause , it is an observation, of the universe doing what it usually does . It is also about what projects into our limited senses! Stuff can exist that does not (normally) impact our senses. The fact an expermental law is valid for the data set so far, does not mean either it has always done it, or will always do it either! Indeed - round galaxy shapes the math does not work! we call the error dark matter, which is a high sounding name for the math doesnt work!

2/ Science is axiomatic limited to what man put into it. The model can only declare apple or orange, if they are already defined . Since "godness" has no definition, the model cannot conclude God, whether or not God is real or caused a behaviour.

So all you can actually say in testing extraordinary behaviour is...
a- it is not doing what it normally does
b- it is violating fundamental axioms of the existing model, and cannot be reconciled without scrapping parts of the model and starting again.
( this requirement is to challenge those who say ... it is only a matter of time before science "iexplains" it eg Take the "time arrow" on prophecy, so far ahead chaos prevents prediction, and so unusual it cannot be guessed.)

-c that it does so in a context associated with Christianity.

That is all you can determine. A limitation of science not God. The rest is belief.
Incidentally - There is PLENTY that meets those tests..

Do they "prove" God? no - science cannot do that, without "godness" defined in the model science cannot declare it.
There may yet be a test for "jesus christness" (the man not God) , - watch this space!

They are "evidence" not proof.

Can you say all "ordinary" behaviour is therefore not driven by God? No... cant do that either!

Without nitpicking a few things, I actually agree, I think. The concept of supernatural is meaningless. There is only that which happens and that which doesn't. However, I can get sucked into it when others use the term supernatural as long as the conversation doesn't get to the point where the meaninglessness of supernatural is relevant.

 

[EarlyActs]

(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;

Please see Lewis' "Science and Religion" conversation-essay. GOD IN THE DOCK. Science is mathematics; thus it is entirely limited as to predicting/expecting other causes and effects. But there are things that happen other causes and effects.

So to help you keep happy, would you accept the term 'knowledge' for those other causes and effects? Is that what all this verbiage is about? If you will accept 'knowledge' which will include all possible causes and effects ('kind' supernatural and 'wicked' supernatural), then I will accept the term 'mathematics' for your word 'science.'

 

[EarlyActs]

Please explain how science can test the proposition "God exists"

By refusing to accept what Heller called the 'insidious deficiency in the concept of reality.' Reality must be crossed checked on more than one level. It will have a mathematic imprint or transcript, for sure, but it will not be reduced to mathematics the way 'science' does.

So I will not use 'science' for knowledge anymore if I can help it because it actually means mathematics, so that it does not have to deal with metaphysical questions. I just showed this problem by pasting the 'natural causes and effects only' for science. That's their problem, and it is a deficiency. Big Science has shown very clearly that it is controlled by forces like BlackRock. This is intellectual communism, where truth is not sought; only 'outcomes' that they can manage; and when you have 7T to work with, you certainly can create outcomes.

 

[EarlyActs]

Supernatural claims can be empirically investigated (to demonstrate they are false). But empirical investigation cannot 'prove' that supernatural claims are supernaturally caused (there is no scientific test for the supernatural). The most science could conclude is "we don't know, we don't know how to explain it, we don't have a natural explanation for it."

But like I said, philosophers can use empirical (and other evidence) to argue for a supernatural explanation. Philosophers can go where scientists cannot.

But 'scientists' are pretending they don't have a view affecting things, that their knowledge is 'complete' that everything has been said when they are done. This is why there is a scientific test for the supernatural; there are things in history and established experience, which are enough of science to be a test even if the supernatural is involved.