Contradictions
Offline I hope I'm starting this new thread in the right forum because I would like to hear from Theists too. I recently discovered this renown philosophy known as Occam's razor which Atheists prefer to live by is simply an anecdotal explanation for life since they have readily admitted that science itself CAN NOT actually prove or DISPROVE the existence of an after life or god- that IS the VERY definition of subjectivity and anecdotal evidence- so I'm curious. How does science disprove the existence of supernatural capabilities anymore then the Bible proves the existence of God?
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
- Login to post comments
Way to not get it. Does your mother know you're outside without your helmet?
I can't think of a way science disproves anything. Science by definition cannot disprove things, but gathers evidence to prove things. If anything, science would have to prove the supernatural exists and not disprove the supernatural exists.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Let me word this so we can avoid straw man arguments over how something was worded and focus solely on the issues.
How does science disprove/prove the existence of supernatural capabilities anymore then the Bible disproves/proves the existence of God?
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Occam's Razor states: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." Meaning, if you don't need X to explain something, don't include X. For instance: The flow of a river is explained as the effect of gravity on the water, the inclination of the land, and water gnomes. Gravity and inclination are sufficient to explain the flow of a river, so the water gnomes are omitted from the explanation until and unless they are later needed to properly explain the flow of a river.
Occam's Razor is often expressed as "the simplest explanation is often the correct explanation", which is a very similar idea.
Now to your question: Science is a method of observing the world and coming to conclusions about it. Science, in principle, allows for anything to exist so long as there is observable, repeatable and predictable evidence for it. Meaning; the standard of evidence requires that anyone can make the same observations (experiments) and get the same results. Science also recognizes that the only useful starting point is the positive claim. In other words, one can make evident or falsify that "air exists", which is a positive claim, where one can't really make evident or falsify "there is no such thing as a wafersnapple" as you can not examine the whole of the universe at once to test for wafersnapples.
So, to prove something supernatural, one would construct an experiment that would either seek the supernatural ability itself (difficult to say the least) or construct an experiment designed to seek indirect evidence for it. For instance, for the positive claim of "I can divine water under the earth" one would set up a series of buried pipes, and have the diviner locate the one that has flowing water - you'd repeat the experiment many times and see if the "hits" occur more often than simple guessing would manage. So, science is a method by which one could verify a claim to supernatural abilities.
The Bible does not compare as it is not a method, rather a collection of stories and parables. It isn't evidence of anything other than people wrote/told these stories and they were collected into a single volume. The veracity contents of the stories themselves can not be determined simple from the Bible itself any more than the veracity of "Harry Potter" books can be determined by examining the volumes.
Hope this helps.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I think I love you.
Damn it Arj. People have already explained this to you so many times. You just refuse to listen, don't you? You just absolutely refuse to learn anything from this forum.
1) Logical conjecture is not subjective evidence. Not......subjective evidence.
2) Occam's Razor is not an explanation of life. Not......an explanation of life.
3) Atheism is lack of belief in a God. Atheism does not involve living by any philosophy. A_theism, without belief in God.
Please look up Occam's Razor and subjectivity on wikipedia.
For the one millionth time, burden.....of.....proof. Science does not have to prove that unicorns don't exist. Does...........not.
See, look at your own words, "disprove the existence," "prove the existence." Disproving and proving is not the same, not.....the same. This is not a valid analogy, not.........a valid analogy.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No, let's correct YOUR misunderstanding.
Wiki Occam's razor
Occam's razor is a principle that states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"
....
Principle define:
Now for my claim: Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES) until it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that everything else can be ruled out. This has not happened in regards to supernatural beliefs because science can not prove or disprove the afterlife therefore OR in this scenario does not equate to scientific validity but a simple fundamental ASSUMPTION.... That's y I said: Until then, it is equivalent to the TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE GOLDEN RULE etc. in the sense that it's just a code of conduct for how to live life and has no scientific implications in this scenario.
The OR fits the description of a principle in my book. It also could go by another name:
Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility... otherwise lacks scientific status.
pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method...
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Arj, that's a common and important question, and I can't really add to the xlint replies.
Humans have always been in "awe", and our science has taught us not to trust our willful imaginations and limited perceptions. Accepting a seemingly cold uncaring reality has always been a hard swallow for most. I however, find an inner peace and warm excitement as our recent science is always better explaining our emotions and even eternal thermodynamic oneness.
Life for very "lucky" me has always been truly more of a burden than joy, and peace at death actually appeals to me. True peace at last!
I could wish a kinder afterlife was real, but that would simply be an emotional appeal. Whatever our science eventually learns about consciousness, I will stick to evidence and lack of evidence, and focus on the NOW.
We are 100% gawed, as all is connected, condemned as so ... and whatever all existence is, we are just in the flow ... and no worry or wishing will change the laws of nature, the cosmos of all universes and dimensions, as I call g-o-d, where no "Master Mind" has been found. Wow, amazing it all is.
I can fantasize too ... Is this now the "afterlife spirit world"? Hey, what's that presence I feel in my head?
Jill is Swift ! lol
Atheism Books.
It's part of the methodology of science in general. The idea being to observe and gather evidence and come to conclusions based solely on that evidence. It is from that evidence that positive claims are made, and then that claim is examined further to test its veracity. This cycle of observe and test serves to make the resulting body of knowledge accurate, as well as to cull faulty knowledge when the process is repeated.
Mind you that it is just one tool among many. In itself, it's not useful for "proving" or "disproving" anything. It streamlines the process of gathering evidence and adds clarity as well, but is itself not evidence of anything.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
OR is about using a 2 step thought process in order to rationalize all things. That doesn't make it scientific. I could care less about the trivial difference between a theory and a code of conduct.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
That's like saying "...the trivial difference between a rock and an orange".
Your response seems to have a significant emotional facet that I don't understand. I've not had the chance to read the other thread you linked. Would you be willing to tell me why Occam's Razor bothers you?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I don't have any problem with it. This is the point I'm trying to make here.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Oh. So this is all much ado about nothing, then?
Just to perception check:
It seems you feel Occam's Razor is a weak defence of atheism. As it is merely a rule-of-thumb used to assist the construction of an hypothesis (or judging between various possible hypotheses), in and of itself, Occam's Razor is useless for determining the existence or non-existence of God or the supernatural.
Is this close?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Occam's Razor is basically the idea that the simplest solution is often the best. I'm not sure how you stretched it out this far... but I'll answer anyways.
"How does science disprove the existence of supernatural capabilities anymore then the Bible proves the existence of God?"
There is a flaw in this question, it assumes that science has claimed to disprove the existence of supernatural capabilities. It has not. Science and scientists have disproven many specific supernatural claims, but overall simply take the stance that there isn't any proof until there is evidence and testing to be looked at. So, by science saying 'There isn't any proof for any supernatural capabilities', it is not claiming to have disproved the existence of supernatural capabilities. Much the same way an Agnostic Atheist does not claim to have proven that god does not exist, he just doesn't see any evidence for it.
That being said, some may get the feeling that science doesn't lend any weight to supernatural claims. I would say this is because there are so many that have been disproven, over and over again, which gets boring. It's like a merry-go-round, and I think most scientists have simply gotten off. For examples of this, see the video section for James Randi's videos. Also see James Randi's website for a list of all of the testing they've done on people making supernatural claims.
As for proving the existence of God, until God stops "proving his existence" through humanly attributable means, we can never prove that God exists. If man hadn't written the bible claiming God's word, we'd have proof. If god didn't 'work in mysterious ways', we'd have proof. If God didn't 'use people to do his bidding', we'd have proof. Unfortunately the proofs for god all lie within the realm of human possibility, meaning that any miracles that happen could have easily happened by chance. Simply put, God chooses not to give us proof. Therefore the bible will never be proof for God.
All ontology, no matter how rich and tightly knitted a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains fundamentally blind and perverts its innermost intent if it has not previously clarified the meaning of being sufficiently and grasp this clarification of as its fundamental task.
Knocking away little by little as to what all reality is, and so the word g-o-d persists, which I prefer to spell g-awe-d. Science is the truest detailed study of gawed, philosophy summarizes, religion spins into dogma.
Atheism Books.
Thank you IAGAY for your clear and concise insights... you are a sage for the modern atheist.
Thanks really Prozac, for understanding some of my mumbo jumbo. My words often need fixing. Oh well, hit and miss, .... LOL
Atheism Books.