1. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Aug '05 22:072 edits
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    "the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
    the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.

    Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.

    Most of the "evidence" for spirits ( of any kind ) are only "obs ...[text shortened]... d as The First LAW.

    in earlier post I was asking if that was what you had meant.
    "the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
    the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.

    With those definitions I think that my answer to your previous question is no. Even if I assume they exist.

    Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
    i can see some problems with this sentence, but I don't think they would contribute to the topic at hand. At least not now, so I'll accept it for the moment.

    What I see in this and other threads from some religious people is their idea that science should use the existence of God as The First LAW.

    in earlier post I was asking if that was what you had meant.

    That problem is more present in the ID thread than this one. My point here is that the supernatural cannot be proven through science without ceasing to be interpreted as supernatural, and would be seen as natural and explainable through natural laws.

    Even if theists want to assume there is such a thing as an unexplainable supernatural, then Science will not, by definition, be able to explain it.

    That is, in my opinion, the paradox facing the theists that attempt to take a scientific approach on the supernatural.
  2. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    23 Aug '05 22:55
    I am a scientist. I do not know what "natural" and "supernatural" mean or what the difference between them is. I don't exclude "supernatural" explanations for things necessarily. I suspect this separation of "natural" and "supernatural" is something that was made up by or at least is talked about pretty much only by theists who want to bash science.
  3. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Aug '05 23:08
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I am a scientist. I do not know what "natural" and "supernatural" mean or what the difference between them is. I don't exclude "supernatural" explanations for things necessarily. I suspect this separation of "natural" and "supernatural" is something that was made up by or at least is talked about pretty much only by theists who want to bash science.
    Bad suspicion. The thread has left science bashing into the possibility of science supporting or being able to test the supernatural.
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    24 Aug '05 01:02
    Originally posted by Palynka
    [b]"the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
    the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.

    With those definitions I think that my answer to your previous question is no. Even if I assume they exist.

    Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in a ...[text shortened]... , the paradox facing the theists that attempt to take a scientific approach on the supernatural.
    ? Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
    i can see some problems with this sentence, but I don't think they would contribute to the topic at hand. At least not now, so I'll accept it for the moment.
    Where precisely is what you see as a problem?
    Observation,,Hypothesis,, Data Collection ,,,Tests,,, Conclusion ,,is the scientific method, is it not?
  5. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Aug '05 02:00
    Science tells you why a hammer dropped on your foot causes the reaction we call pain.
    Religion tells you that you deserve it.
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    24 Aug '05 04:30
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Is Science neutral? Or is Science used as a vehicle to 'prove' presuppositions?
    despite the 'questioning attitude', i think it's pretty obvious what you are trying to say.

    if i wanted to advance 'presuppositions', then i would just do what you do: continually and confidently repeat unfounded assertions as though they were absolute truths. wouldn't that be an easier way to peddle my wares, rather than going through the complicated charade of pretending to be a scientist?

    that reminds me: i just made a big breakthrough in the lab. my testing clearly demonstrates that you are a satan worshipper and that you like to unwind at night by taking long bubble baths while listening to Kenny G.
  7. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    24 Aug '05 07:531 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Bad suspicion. The thread has left science bashing into the possibility of science supporting or being able to test the supernatural.
    [dumb comment deleted]
  8. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    24 Aug '05 08:00
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Come on, take a bite at it!

    Can "Science" be neutral? Theoretically, it can, but practically almost never. Most "science" today starts with the assumption that there is a natural explanation for all observations, and supernatural explanations must not be considered. Thus any action of a divine or supernatural being will always be attributed to natu ...[text shortened]... t neutral, but is antithetical to the reality of the divine - a critical (sometimes fatal) flaw.
    At the time that science started the presupposition was one of divine intervention. Testing these presuppositions is at the foundation of science. Failiure to prove divine intervention prepared the ground for the Enlightenment and the age of reason
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    24 Aug '05 08:04
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    At the time that science started the presupposition was one of divine intervention.
    The God hypothesis. "Who created all this stuff? Hmm...must be one powerful spirit".
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    24 Aug '05 09:231 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    [dumb comment deleted]
    [even dumber comment deleted]
  11. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    24 Aug '05 10:18
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    ? Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
    The problems could arise if someone questioned how far do we know about the accuracy of such "known laws" and how far do we understand the range of implications behind them. My point is that put it that way, they are similar to dogma if one sees them as the truth. A law that passes testing can still be incomplete (e.g. Newtonian physics) and improved.

    I don't think this is what you meant by "known" but I can see how someone could pick up on that point.
  12. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    24 Aug '05 11:55
    Originally posted by echecero
    Without a presupposition, there is nothing to test [b]or prove. Science works on the basis of making a presupposition, testing it for validity, and if it fails the test, try a new presupposition. When one succeeds sufficient testing, it becomes a theory, and worthy of teaching others.[/b]
    I think you are confusing my 'presupposition' with 'hypothesis'.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    24 Aug '05 12:18
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I think you are confusing my 'presupposition' with 'hypothesis'.
    Are you some sort of maniac?

    You presuppose that science is based on presupposition. Fine. You may presuppose what you want. The mediaval church presupposed that the world was flat and was proven wrong by scientists testing their hypotheses.
  14. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    24 Aug '05 23:39
    Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science


    At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5065&en=3d2d2deaa8bcc24f&ex=1125460800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
  15. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    24 Aug '05 23:53
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science


    At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5065&en=3d2d2deaa8bcc24f&ex=1125460800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
    Talk about spin.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree