Guest end3 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 End3 wrote... "If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you understand the comparison I'm making." StillLooking doesn't have to understand any comparison anyone makes between any aspect of science and any aspect of religion, because nobody should be making these comparisons. Such comparisons are outside of the remit of science, so there aren't two things to compare. Science has nothing to say about religion or the supernatural. Since you have degree in chemistry End, this tells us that you shouldn't be ignorant of how science works. Thank you for that piece of personal information. From this we can glean that you must be making the conscious and wilful decision not to abide by the rules by which science works and governs itself. So our efforts to educate and enlighten you have been wasted. It's not that you don't understand - it's that yours is a stonewall refusal to do the science correctly, as per it's globally accepted and objective rules. Instead of agreeing to do the science objectively, you insist on bringing your personal agenda and bias into the mix. End3 also wrote... "We may ask anything we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry." No. That's incorrect. We may not do that. Certain inquiries fall outside of science's remit. A perfect example of this kind of unscientific inquiry is the very one you cite - Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai. The energy Moses was exposed to came from a supernatural source (God) and therefore, since science only investigates natural phenomenon, science can say nothing about it. The issue of whether something can or can't be measured is irrelevant. By definition science measures only natural energies, observes natural mechanisms and tries to explain natural phenomenon. So something supernatural (even if it is in our physical universe) is beyond the ability of science to investigate and explain. I agree, btw. Collecting data on LGM on Mars IS science. But not for the reason you gave. Measurability isn't what makes studying them science. If they originated in the natural universe, then by definition, they are natural phenomenon and so they fall within the remit of scientific inquiry. If their origin were supernatural, then by the same definition, they would be supernatural phenomenon (like God) and therefore be outside of the remit of scientific inquiry. End3 wrote... "But the point is, I'm not proposing collecting data on something supernatural." Actually, Yes... you are doing exactly that. Which is why your proposal is not science. God (the source of the light) is supernatural, not natural. The effect of that light on Moses' face was supernatural, not natural. The light that Moses' face then gave off, which was seen by his fellow Israelites, was supernatural, not natural. There is nothing in Moses' encounter with God that science can investigate. If you really do understand science (as you claim) then you'll know this is so. And taking you at your word End, seeing as you do understand that science can't investigate the supernatural, your stubborn insistence that it can, is excellent evidence that your scientific objectivity is compromised. Therefore, any investigation proposed by you will be equally compromised and must be rejected as not meeting the necessary standards of objectivity and scientific rigor. You call it science ...but it isn't. Science has placed a 'wall' between the natural and the supernatural. If this wall is tampered with, dismantled, tunnelled under, climbed over or evaded in any way, any investigation is hopelessly compromised and is automatically rejected as not being science. You should know this. Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 End3 wrote... "If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you understand the comparison I'm making." StillLooking doesn't have to understand any comparison anyone makes between any aspect of science and any aspect of religion, because nobody should be making these comparisons. Such comparisons are outside of the remit of science, so there aren't two things to compare. Science has nothing to say about religion or the supernatural. Since you have degree in chemistry End, this tells us that you shouldn't be ignorant of how science works. Thank you for that piece of personal information. From this we can glean that you must be making the conscious and wilful decision not to abide by the rules by which science works and governs itself. So our efforts to educate and enlighten you have been wasted. It's not that you don't understand - it's that yours is a stonewall refusal to do the science correctly, as per it's globally accepted and objective rules. Instead of agreeing to do the science objectively, you insist on bringing your personal agenda and bias into the mix. End3 also wrote... "We may ask anything we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry." No. That's incorrect. We may not do that. Certain inquiries fall outside of science's remit. A perfect example of this kind of unscientific inquiry is the very one you cite - Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai. The energy Moses was exposed to came from a supernatural source (God) and therefore, since science only investigates natural phenomenon, science can say nothing about it. The issue of whether something can or can't be measured is irrelevant. By definition science measures only natural energies, observes natural mechanisms and tries to explain natural phenomenon. So something supernatural (even if it is in our physical universe) is beyond the ability of science to investigate and explain. I agree, btw. Collecting data on LGM on Mars IS science. But not for the reason you gave. Measurability isn't what makes studying them science. If they originated in the natural universe, then by definition, they are natural phenomenon and so they fall within the remit of scientific inquiry. If their origin were supernatural, then by the same definition, they would be supernatural phenomenon (like God) and therefore be outside of the remit of scientific inquiry. End3 wrote... "But the point is, I'm not proposing collecting data on something supernatural." Actually, Yes... you are doing exactly that. Which is why your proposal is not science. God (the source of the light) is supernatural, not natural. The effect of that light on Moses' face was supernatural, not natural. The light that Moses' face then gave off, which was seen by his fellow Israelites, was supernatural, not natural. There is nothing in Moses' encounter with God that science can investigate. If you really do understand science (as you claim) then you'll know this is so. And taking you at your word End, seeing as you do understand that science can't investigate the supernatural, your stubborn insistence that it can, is excellent evidence that your scientific objectivity is compromised. Therefore, any investigation proposed by you will be equally compromised and must be rejected as not meeting the necessary standards of objectivity and scientific rigor. You call it science ...but it isn't. Science has placed a 'wall' between the natural and the supernatural. If this wall is tampered with, dismantled, tunnelled under, climbed over or evaded in any way, any investigation is hopelessly compromised and is automatically rejected as not being science. You should know this. Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. Then please describe the nature of your analogy. If it falls outside of the proper definition of science... no problem. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. Please re-read my comments to you about the LGM, End. You'll see that we are in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 You did notice where I said move towards complete certainty. This implies that we are never out of that state. Catch? No. There is no indication that scientists have a goal to move towards complete certainty. You totally misunderstand science. I think End3 might be saying that science begins when people start asking questions, and that's also what pushes science forward. You know, like if I ask a scientist, "If you can't know for certain, why do you keep looking for the explanation?" And the answer Dude, reads like this. Because science is the best tool we have for explaining how the natural universe works. Therefore, we keep using it to look for explanations of nature. Questions about the supernatural can't be answered by science. So another, completely separate discipline is used. That's religion. Can questions about any dark matterish supernatural not even supposed to exist until we asked questions about it things ever be explained by science? Not if scientists don't ask the questions. Dark matter is not supernatural, Dude. It's a natural physical phenomenon that is currently not well explained. We know that it's natural because it affects natural objects like stars and galaxies. Things that are hypothesized to exist are done so on the back of real physical measurements. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dark_matter An excellent example is the Higgs boson, which was declared to have been detected in 2012. In actuality, nobody has ever 'seen' it and no machine or instrument has ever directly detected it. But the effects it has on other particles have been detected and the disparity between the energy put into the particle collisions in the Large Hadron Collider and the energy seen coming out has also been detected. The mismatch between the input energy and the output energy lines up very well with the calculations and the predictions. On the basis of these indirect detections and the agreement between predicted output energy shortfall and the actual output energy shortfall, the Higgs has been declared as detected. There's nothing supernatural going on here. That help? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 End3 wrote... "If you don't understand ICP techniques, then how can you understand the comparison I'm making." StillLooking doesn't have to understand any comparison anyone makes between any aspect of science and any aspect of religion, because nobody should be making these comparisons. Such comparisons are outside of the remit of science, so there aren't two things to compare. Science has nothing to say about religion or the supernatural. Since you have degree in chemistry End, this tells us that you shouldn't be ignorant of how science works. Thank you for that piece of personal information. From this we can glean that you must be making the conscious and wilful decision not to abide by the rules by which science works and governs itself. So our efforts to educate and enlighten you have been wasted. It's not that you don't understand - it's that yours is a stonewall refusal to do the science correctly, as per it's globally accepted and objective rules. Instead of agreeing to do the science objectively, you insist on bringing your personal agenda and bias into the mix. End3 also wrote... "We may ask anything we wish and it may fall within scientific inquiry." No. That's incorrect. We may not do that. Certain inquiries fall outside of science's remit. A perfect example of this kind of unscientific inquiry is the very one you cite - Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai. The energy Moses was exposed to came from a supernatural source (God) and therefore, since science only investigates natural phenomenon, science can say nothing about it. The issue of whether something can or can't be measured is irrelevant. By definition science measures only natural energies, observes natural mechanisms and tries to explain natural phenomenon. So something supernatural (even if it is in our physical universe) is beyond the ability of science to investigate and explain. I agree, btw. Collecting data on LGM on Mars IS science. But not for the reason you gave. Measurability isn't what makes studying them science. If they originated in the natural universe, then by definition, they are natural phenomenon and so they fall within the remit of scientific inquiry. If their origin were supernatural, then by the same definition, they would be supernatural phenomenon (like God) and therefore be outside of the remit of scientific inquiry. End3 wrote... "But the point is, I'm not proposing collecting data on something supernatural." Actually, Yes... you are doing exactly that. Which is why your proposal is not science. God (the source of the light) is supernatural, not natural. The effect of that light on Moses' face was supernatural, not natural. The light that Moses' face then gave off, which was seen by his fellow Israelites, was supernatural, not natural. There is nothing in Moses' encounter with God that science can investigate. If you really do understand science (as you claim) then you'll know this is so. And taking you at your word End, seeing as you do understand that science can't investigate the supernatural, your stubborn insistence that it can, is excellent evidence that your scientific objectivity is compromised. Therefore, any investigation proposed by you will be equally compromised and must be rejected as not meeting the necessary standards of objectivity and scientific rigor. You call it science ...but it isn't. Science has placed a 'wall' between the natural and the supernatural. If this wall is tampered with, dismantled, tunnelled under, climbed over or evaded in any way, any investigation is hopelessly compromised and is automatically rejected as not being science. You should know this. BAA, . Clear and thorough. If you for some reason decide you don't want to be a gardener anymore, you should consider any science field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. It is because you don't collect information that it is not science. About the little green men, when you conduct scientific experiment you should have two hypotheses, null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis that you want to assert. You should test both hypotheses during the experiment. When you do the proper procedures with the proper hypotheses, then it is science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Dark matter is not supernatural, Dude. It's a natural physical phenomenon that is currently not well explained. We know that it's natural because it affects natural objects like stars and galaxies. Things that are hypothesized to exist are done so on the back of real physical measurements. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dark_matter An excellent example is the Higgs boson, which was declared to have been detected in 2012. In actuality, nobody has ever 'seen' it and no machine or instrument has ever directly detected it. But the effects it has on other particles have been detected and the disparity between the energy put into the particle collisions in the Large Hadron Collider and the energy seen coming out has also been detected. The mismatch between the input energy and the output energy lines up very well with the calculations and the predictions. On the basis of these indirect detections and the agreement between predicted output energy shortfall and the actual output energy shortfall, the Higgs has been declared as detected. There's nothing supernatural going on here. That help? Thanks, BAA. I am going to go out to an area where I am a complete beginner here. Please correct me if I get a theory wrong. I draw parallel between dark matter investigation and evolution investigation circa 1900s. As BAA wrote no one can see dark matter as of now but we can see its impact on other particles. It is the same with evolution. No one can see the evolution process from aquatic creature to land creature to some ancient homo to modern homo. However, we can see the evidence supporting evolution theory from today living creatures and fossil records. Of course now we can observe the evolution of bacteria. Also, there are many science disciplines that involve evolution and all of them support the theory of evolution. Side note: for those of you who want to understand evolution better I highly suggest you contact a member named MrSpooky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. It is because you don't collect information that it is not science. About the little green men, when you conduct scientific experiment you should have two hypotheses, null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis that you want to assert. You should test both hypotheses during the experiment. When you do the proper procedures with the proper hypotheses, then it is science. Please, please, please, please, tell me when I suggested that it was nothing more than a comparison. So it's not science if I don't perform two hypotheses? yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. It is because you don't collect information that it is not science. About the little green men, when you conduct scientific experiment you should have two hypotheses, null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis that you want to assert. You should test both hypotheses during the experiment. When you do the proper procedures with the proper hypotheses, then it is science. Please, please, please, please, tell me when I suggested that it was nothing more than a comparison. So it's not science if I don't perform two hypotheses? yes or no. Yes, it is not a scientific experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Supernatural by definition is a phenomenon which cannot be detected scientifically thus it is not science. God is supernatural by definition, thus we don't discuss God in science. I really want to know, do you see evidence of the presence of God in the world? Are those evidence being observed by an objective observant and can those evidence be observed multiple times at multiple conditions? I am being serious here. This is an ex-christian site so it is appropriate to discuss this. Please bring the evidence here to be discuss. Science moves forward by asking questions. However, not all questions are the same. Should we ask questions about the existence of rainbow ponies in zoology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. It is because you don't collect information that it is not science. About the little green men, when you conduct scientific experiment you should have two hypotheses, null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis that you want to assert. You should test both hypotheses during the experiment. When you do the proper procedures with the proper hypotheses, then it is science. Please, please, please, please, tell me when I suggested that it was nothing more than a comparison. So it's not science if I don't perform two hypotheses? yes or no. Yes, it is not a scientific experiment. Let's see your work on that one please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 6, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2015 What if the supernatural is natural? That would simply mean that the "supernatural" doesn't exist. Most people can't handle such a concept, so the definition of "supernatural" is that there is something magically beyond the observation and measurement of the natural (real) world and its scientific methods. People obviously need a little magic to satisfy their need for hope and answers when none exist in the real (natural) world. I think that mankind will be slow to lose the need for imagining the unseen and undetectable realms. In our relentless quest for knowledge and understanding, things once thought to be supernatural have given way to more mundane explanations; volcanoes, eclipses, etc. The supernatural was in fact found to be natural in those instances. The idea of something supernatural out there remains, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I thought a null hypothesis, although accepted, still requires data. Just because it's accepted doesn't make it true. So not really clear how this is not science SL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Then it would cease to be god if it was natural like everyone/everything else. Going into pantheist territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Dark matter is not supernatural, Dude. It's a natural physical phenomenon that is currently not well explained. We know that it's natural because it affects natural objects like stars and galaxies. Things that are hypothesized to exist are done so on the back of real physical measurements. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dark_matter An excellent example is the Higgs boson, which was declared to have been detected in 2012. In actuality, nobody has ever 'seen' it and no machine or instrument has ever directly detected it. But the effects it has on other particles have been detected and the disparity between the energy put into the particle collisions in the Large Hadron Collider and the energy seen coming out has also been detected. The mismatch between the input energy and the output energy lines up very well with the calculations and the predictions. On the basis of these indirect detections and the agreement between predicted output energy shortfall and the actual output energy shortfall, the Higgs has been declared as detected. There's nothing supernatural going on here. That help? Thanks, BAA. I am going to go out to an area where I am a complete beginner here. Please correct me if I get a theory wrong. I draw parallel between dark matter investigation and evolution investigation circa 1900s. As BAA wrote no one can see dark matter as of now but we can see its impact on other particles. It is the same with evolution. No one can see the evolution process from aquatic creature to land creature to some ancient homo to modern homo. However, we can see the evidence supporting evolution theory from today living creatures and fossil records. Of course now we can observe the evolution of bacteria. Also, there are many science disciplines that involve evolution and all of them support the theory of evolution. Side note: for those of you who want to understand evolution better I highly suggest you contact a member named MrSpooky. Yes, SL. The parallel is good. Sometimes things do become clearer when we look at how past scientists dealt with unexplained phenomenon. One of my favorite examples goes right back to the late 1600's, when Isaac Newton's principles of universal gravitation failed to adequately explain the observed motion of the planet Mercury. His calculations seemed to work fine everywhere else, but they were stymied when it came to that planet. It took another two centuries and a certain Albert Einstein to solve the mystery. The immense gravitational field of the Sun was warping the fabric of space in a way Newton couldn't have known about, causing the anomalous shift in Mercury's orbit. Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted this shift, explained why it happened and was later confirmed by accurate observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury So the moral of the story is simple. If something is currently unexplained by science... wait a while. The explanation may well come along in due time. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Where have I ever suggested we could collect data on God and Moses...or God and anyone. I have already said it was analogous. To the little green men thing. I observe no evidence of little green men on Mars. My hypothesis is no men. I set up cameras to collect data. My experiment concludes no men on Mars. Why is this not science. It is because you don't collect information that it is not science. About the little green men, when you conduct scientific experiment you should have two hypotheses, null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis that you want to assert. You should test both hypotheses during the experiment. When you do the proper procedures with the proper hypotheses, then it is science. Please, please, please, please, tell me when I suggested that it was nothing more than a comparison. So it's not science if I don't perform two hypotheses? yes or no. End, All science is performed using Methodological Naturalism. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. If any science is taken out of it's proper MN context (e.g., by comparing it with something outside of MN) then you are comparing apples and oranges. Oil and water. Chalk and cheese. The whole exercise is futile and invalid and violates the basic requirements and ground rules of science. Please indicate that you understand and agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Dude, If you're conflating God with the natural universe, then you're heading in the direction of Deism, Pantheism or even Panentheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the main reason why scientists don't trouble themselves with the kind of questions you mention is one of simple practicality. If God is indistinguishable from the natural universe, then no amount of questions or tests or experiments or observations will ever reveal his/her/it's presence. So why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Let's see your work on that one please. I am afraid I don't understand your question. Are you asking me to disclose my work here? I thought a null hypothesis, although accepted, still requires data. Just because it's accepted doesn't make it true. So not really clear how this is not science SL... I will give an example. In the little green men case, the null hypothesis is there is no little green men on mars. The alternative hypothesis is there are little green men on mars. You should do observation, document the time and location of the observation. It would be better if you do same spot different time of the mars day. It would be better if you do observation at least more than 2 years of mars. Then you should do statistical analysis and compare them. I would make a guess the data for both hypotheses going to yield no green men sightings. This means there is no statistical difference in both hypothesis (I would think no difference at all). ps: I am not a statistical person and I only know statistical for my area of study so when I talk about statistical analysis you need to take it with a grain of salt. You can also ask Orbit, if I am not mistaken she is an expert in statistics. You are right, just because it is accepted it doesn't make it true ALL THE TIME. For example all physics text book studying newtonian law would say flat surface when it is parallel to the earth. We know that earth is not flat. Do we need to change all the language in physics text book to include assumed tangentially flat surface of the earth? Anyway, your glowing feeling like when Moses saw God that you perceived when you run ICP is not science still. You can make it science when you do proper scientific experiment. Do you run the same test with other technicians? Do they give the same answers? Your null hypothesis is supposed to be the glowing flame is just glowing flame. Your alternative hypothesis is the glowing flame similar to that Moses saw when he felt God's presence. Run your tests, see what your samples say. Randomized your design too, pick people from different beliefs. Don't forget to replicate the test. Go to ICP seller to find how many ICP machine there is in the world, go find how many technicians have run the machine. Your number of samples should be big enough to make sure the result is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Dude, If you're conflating God with the natural universe, then you're heading in the direction of Deism, Pantheism or even Panentheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the main reason why scientists don't trouble themselves with the kind of questions you mention is one of simple practicality. If God is indistinguishable from the natural universe, then no amount of questions or tests or experiments or observations will ever reveal his/her/it's presence. So why bother? So science has limits? Seems odd. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Dude, If you're conflating God with the natural universe, then you're heading in the direction of Deism, Pantheism or even Panentheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the main reason why scientists don't trouble themselves with the kind of questions you mention is one of simple practicality. If God is indistinguishable from the natural universe, then no amount of questions or tests or experiments or observations will ever reveal his/her/it's presence. So why bother? So science has limits? Only when it comes to trying to prove/discover/test something that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Everybody, I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this. It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Everybody, I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this. It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. I was only joking when i said "going into pantheist territory." You're not clogging up anything. It's good to ask questions. You're still the man dude. The good news is that we're all getting an education from BAA, and it's free of charge. Thanks BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Dude, If you're conflating God with the natural universe, then you're heading in the direction of Deism, Pantheism or even Panentheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the main reason why scientists don't trouble themselves with the kind of questions you mention is one of simple practicality. If God is indistinguishable from the natural universe, then no amount of questions or tests or experiments or observations will ever reveal his/her/it's presence. So why bother? So science has limits? Seems odd. I don't know a great deal about this, Dude. What with being a self-taught amateur. But one thing seems kinda obvious to me (no disrespect to you intended by this, btw). So please follow this line of argument and see if you agree with it. 1. Humans are limited beings. 2. Science is something done by humans. 3. Therefore, science must be as limited in what it can do as the humans doing it. 4. Because, to say otherwise would mean that something humans do can somehow can exceed the ability of the humans doing it. (Please note that humans might be able to create artificial intelligences, which might then go on to exceed human abilities. But then it will be these intelligences themselves who will be exceeding us and not us somehow exceeding ourselves.) Does that hang together for you? . . . But now let me ask you this. Why does it seem odd to you for science to have limits? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Everybody, I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this. It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. I was only joking when i said "going into pantheist territory." You're not clogging up anything. It's good to ask questions. You're still man dude. The good news is that we're all getting an education from BAA, and it's free of charge. Thanks BAA. And from StillLooking, Alien! Kudos to her too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 And from StillLooking, Alien! Kudos to her too. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts