pwagen Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 How do you know its has no impact on you, on your life and therefore no impact on humanity ,on the world, on the universe ?Because acting in a way that would yield a certain result (for example, dressing in an immoral fashion to cause earthquakes) has been shown not to cause the expected result. Thus, we can conclude it has no impact on our lifes. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobquake 1
Dbaiba Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Truly Dbaiba's arguments are exactly what the God Delusion is about, it's very difficult to see your own delusion, once you do the world is never the same again but that first step is so very difficult when your mind is infected with the god meme... once you believe that belief becomes the center of your reality but it is only real inside your own head which is of course the most influential part of reality... until you step in front of that bus then the external reality reasserts itself but you no longer exist to realise it... I can say that your delusion in that regard is no better than mine , assuming i am delusional at least Try to prove your delusion about people like me as a true one , assuming that your delusion is a real true thing then
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 How do you know its has no impact on you, on your life and therefore no impact on humanity ,on the world, on the universe ? How do you know that? , since even science cannot even prove or disprove its existence : the existence of the supernatural, i mean How did you get to know that , i wanna know You have been told many times, empirical evidence is required for something to be part of perceptible reality. Simply believing something is not evidence of anything but your belief. And how can you acknowledge the existence of something you cannot define as such ? Is not being able to define it a reason enough to dismiss it as worthless or with no impact ? If it has some impact it could be investigated, when earthquakes, volcanoes, and lightning were thought to be supernatural they still had perceptible effects on reality. Eventually naturalistic explanations provided answers the assumption of the supernatural could not do. As far as i know there is currently no effect on reality that cannot be explained by naturalistic methods but if there were I would still be looking for a natural explanation instead of "god did it" because so far the track record of "god did it" is zero successes... When i say i believe in the supernatural , i mean what i say , i believe , that;s different from knowing and only knowing can define the known So, don't expect the supernatural to be clearly defined , not in this life at least There is a lots of inconsistency and contradiction in those few words of yours This is a psychological thing , i guess When people are confronted with their irrationality regarding the denial of something , they say afterwards, i do not rule its existence out , but then they switch to another denial they cannot prove either I expect another degree of denial from you as a result I expect an example of the supernatural, you keep making that claim, the claim that you can demonstrate the supernatural or give some example but so far it is all talk and no substance... I can say that your delusion in that regard is no better than mine , assuming i am delusional at least Try to prove your delusion about people like me as a true one , assuming that your delusion is a real true thing then you believe the Quran is the inerrant word of god? Am I correct?
Dbaiba Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Demanding proof of the supernatural again Silly paradox that dies hard , i see Even science itself cannot , per definition, deliver such a thing : proof or lack of proof of the supernatural The supernatural cannot be subjected to our logic , reason, science , folks, once again That's why we just believe in it and we have reasons for doing just that , once again Look, folks, i am tired , i gotta wake up early Thanks , appreciate indeed I realise i am not water proof in what i say , not even remotely close ,no wonder considering the subject of our "inquiry " which escapes any reason, logic , science of ours I do not pretend to know the supernatural, i just believe in it and for good reasons unlike all your kindda Dawkins out there who pretend to know "everything" their own science is absolutely incapable of confirming , per definition , not even remotely close Bye and take care
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Demanding proof of the supernatural again Silly paradox that dies hard , i see Even science itself cannot , per definition, deliver such a thing : proof or lack of proof of the supernatural The supernatural cannot be subjected to our logic , reason, science , folks, once again That's why we just believe in it and we have reasons for doing just that , once again Look, folks, i am tired , i gotta wake up early Thanks , appreciate indeed I realise i am not water proof in what i say , not even remotely close ,no wonder considering the subject of our "inquiry " which escapes any reason, logic , science of ours I do not pretend to know the supernatural, i just believe in it and for good reasons unlike all your kindda Dawkins out there who pretend to know "everything" their own science is absolutely incapable of confirming , per definition , not even remotely close Bye and take care No, I am not demanding proof of the supernatural simply some evidence for it, you have provided none... I'll make it easy for you, you have put words in my mouth several times so i will return the favor, your religious texts contain demonstrably false information, if you believe it anyway then you are delusional by definition. On the other hand I do not believe anything that does not have empirical evidence to back it up, the need for evidence scales up with the grandeur of the claim, your claims have zero evidence and nearly infinite grandeur... delusional by definition... 1
Dbaiba Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I tell the guy the supernatural escapes even science itself and he tells me that it has no impact Worse : he , once again, says , its alleged impact cannot be investigated Of course , it escapes all man investigation, for the time being at least , but it's out there nevertheless impacting our lives in ways we do not know exactty , considering the nature of the impact only religion can give us some hints about ... I really gotta go, folks Thank you very much for your interesting insights i will take a closer look at wenever i can See ya another day
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I tell the guy the supernatural escapes even science itself and he tells me that it has no impact Worse : he , once again, says , its alleged impact cannot be investigated Of course , it escapes all man investigation, for the time being at least , but it's out there nevertheless impacting our lives in ways we do not know exactty , considering the nature of the impact only religion can give us some hints about ... I really gotta go, folks Thank you very much for your interesting insights i will take a closer look at wenever i can See ya another day No the assertion is there is no evident impact, if there was it could and would be investigated, now you are just playing word games because you know have nothing... very sad...
Dbaiba Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) No, I am not demanding proof of the supernatural simply some evidence for it, you have provided none... I'll make it easy for you, you have put words in my mouth several times so i will return the favor, your religious texts contain demonstrably false information, if you believe it anyway then you are delusional by definition. On the other hand I do not believe anything that does not have empirical evidence to back it up, the need for evidence scales up with the grandeur of the claim, your claims have zero evidence and nearly infinite grandeur... delusional by definition... How can you keep on making such illogic irrational , unscientific statements even when even science itself cannot , per definition, and will never be able to provide you with 'empirical evidence " regarding the supernatural at least : that's precisely where religion comes in . Don't expect science to give you what it has absolutely not , in the first place to begin with Science not onlt does absolutely not and will absolutely not deliver that " evidence " you are so desperately looking for , but science cannot , per definition, do that ,once again , otherwise it's no science That's the role of religion, not science's, once again , hallloooooooo And there is a different place , role , function and nature of both religion and science Both religion and science can go hand in hand , the true religion at least , because they are the both sides of the same "coin " : they need each other , they complete each other ......if one wanna approach the whole pic as a synthesis from both at least I rely on both science and religion , you rely only on science or on what some extremist scientists tell you what science is at least So , i see with those both eyes , you see only with one Reminds me of this song haha : " Where did you get those blue or pretty eyes from ? " I am willing to lend you the most important eye you miss , so Edited June 19, 2013 by Dbaiba -5
Arete Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) Demanding proof of the supernatural again Silly paradox that dies hard , i see Even science itself cannot , per definition, deliver such a thing : proof or lack of proof of the supernatural At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the scientific method has an explicit framework for dealing with hypotheses for which no evidence is found. If you are unable to reject a null hypothesis it is retained. In the instance of the supernatural, lack of evidence dictates that they cannot upheld as scientific explanations, and must be rejected as not significant. As such, retention of a positive result (in this particular case the existence of deity) is unscientific. That is to say it is distinctly not "beyond science" as you keep asserting - but unscientific, as in a violation of the scientific method. That's not to say that all belief that violates the scientific method is bad (e.g. my belief that my train will turn up on time may be unscientific) but if you're going to condemn Dawkins for a valid application of the method to religion, base it on something other than ad hom and logical fallacy. I do not pretend to know the supernatural, i just believe in it and for good reasons Aside from "you can't prove me wrong" (which has been repeatedly explained to be a logical fallacy and thus an invalid position, at least here) what are they? Edited June 19, 2013 by Arete 1
Ringer Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Well, science cannot prove neither the existence of our consciousness as such nor the existence of our subjective inner lives as such , to mention just those : Does that mean they do not exist as such , according to you ?Except science does show evidence that consciousness exists since it exerts an effect. So making a false statement to support an argument doesn't really help you.I am aware of that : science cannot function otherwise : that's the nature of science to deal with just natural phenomena : that does not mean that naturalism 's approach is the only valid one ,because there are other valid sources of knowledge as well .Well it's the only one that seems to actually be able to get things done. It's logical , rational and scientific indeed to exclude the supernatural from science , but that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such as a result , that everything outside of the realm of science simply does not exist as suchIt's not if it exists, it's that it doesn't matter. In short : Science does not have the monopoly of the truth , science is not the only source of knowledge . Again, what other sources of knowledge have caused species wide progress? There are some aspects of reality science can never approach as such , simply because they exist outside of the realm of science ( science cannot capture the ultimate reality as a whole anyway , science can only approach and isolate the fragments of the natural material reality ) as science cannot approach some levels of the human consciousness , for example .Well, I guess that depends on how you define reality. I don't believe in the supernatural, you do. I rely on evidence to determine what is and isn't real, you don't. The method I use has consistently improved and is able to accurately predict things ranging from how to help treat diseases, how to give people clean water, generate electricity, allow food not to spoil, etc. What has yours done? You, folks , make it sound as if science can approach reality as a whole , as if science can approach the essence of things = very unscientific way of thinking .See above. You should just say , well, science excludes the supernatural because the latter , if it exists , lays outside of the realm of science . So, science has nothing to say about it . Instead you seem to say that as the supernatural , if it exists , is outside of the realm of science , so the supernatural does not exist as such = false and unscientific approach of yours . No, I say science excludes the supernatural because it hasn't made an impact on our ability to accurately predict or measure everything we know exists. Since it makes no impact on the natural world, and we are interested in explaining the natural world, the supernatural doesn't matter.
Recommended Posts