The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 12-03-2017 10:12PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How can they be scientific validations if science does not concern itself with the supernatural? Therefore, logically, they cannot be scientific or validations.

... and therein lies the circular logic ... place a ban on the investigation of supernatural causes at the heart of science ... and lie back in the secure knowledge that the existence of God can never be scientifically validated ... while the rule remains ... great if you are an Atheist.

... not so good if you have valid scientific proof that God exists and are prevented from scientific peer review and publication, because of an Atheist-friendly rule within the heart of science.

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:12PM

J C wrote: »

Yes.

Are you talking about Benzmuller and Woltzenlogel Paleo's proof of Godel's mathematical model?

J C · 12-03-2017 10:15PM

Harika wrote: »

Great, link them please.

I don't have access to them.

Harika · 12-03-2017 10:16PM

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to them.

Names, authors, ISN ?

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:18PM

J C wrote: »

... and therein lies the circular logic ... place a ban on the investigation of supernatural causes at the heart of science ... and lie back in the secure knowledge that the existence of God can never be scientifically validated ... great if you are an Atheist.

... not so good if you have valid scientific proof that God exists and are prevented from scientific peer review and publication, because of an Atheist-friendly rule within the heart of science.

You cannot have 'valid scientific proof' of the supernatural. Therefore, existence of any concept that is deemed to be supernatural, such as 'God', remains theoretical.

marienbad · 12-03-2017 10:19PM

JC aren't you as bad as those journals you are criticising in that you say you have access to proof but you just can't let us see it .

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:20PM

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to them.

Enjoy.

J C · 12-03-2017 10:31PM

Harika wrote: »

Names, authors, ISN ?

Here is an example of a paper that got through ... but subsequently was witdrawn.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:34PM

J C wrote: »

Here is an example of a paper that got through ... but subsequently was witdrawn.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035

What about your Godel argument?

J C · 12-03-2017 10:38PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Enjoy.

Thanks.

Its not within my areas of specialisation ... but I'm enjoying reading it nonetheless.

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:41PM

J C wrote: »

Thanks.

Its not within my areas of specialisation ... but I'm enjoying reading it nonetheless.

This is a good article that outlines their work.

J C · 12-03-2017 10:47PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is a good article that outlines their work.

Thanks ... computers are now capable of validating logic and other heretofore abilities confined to Humans.
I am open to correction, but what seems to have happened, in this case, is that the logical arguments inherent in Godel's Theorm have been tested ... and came out validated on the other side.

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 10:51PM

J C wrote: »

Thanks ... computers are now capable of validating logic and other heretofore abilities confined to Humans.
I am open to correction, but what seems to have happened, in this case, is that logic inherent in Godel's Theorm has been tested ... and came out validated on the other side.

Yes. However, it offers no proof of anything supernatural. Just that Kodel's mathematical model works.

J C · 12-03-2017 10:59PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. However, it offers no proof of anything supernatural. Just that Kodel's mathematical model works.

Like, I have said, this is not an area that I'm familiar with ... but as Godel's Theorm is based on the onthological / metaphysical proofs for God ... the proof of the theorm should be an indirect mathematical proof for the existence of God.

Metaphysics is something I haven't studied ... so I'm not going to argue one way or the other on Godel's Theorm.

I'm merely reporting it as progress in the direction of scientific proof for God.

Professor Moriarty · 12-03-2017 11:09PM

J C wrote: »

Like, I have said, this is not an area that I'm familiar with ... but as Godel's Theorm is based on the onthological / metaphysical proofs for God ... the proof of the theorm should be an indirect proof for the existence of God.

Metaphysics is something I haven't studied ... so I'm not going to argue one way or the other on Godel's Theorm.

Well, the very broad consensus is that it doesn't prove the existence of God. So let's just leave Godel in peace.

J C · 12-03-2017 11:19PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, the very broad consensus is that it doesn't prove the existence of God. So let's just leave Godel in peace.

I'll also leave Godel in peace ... but my experience with 'broad consensuses' in other areas of science, on the existence of God leaves me doubting what these consensuses agree on ... especially when there continues to be a rule within science that supernatural causes cannot be scientifically evaluated.
When you think about it, the only way that this rule can remain, is by having a 'broad consensus' that Godel's now proven Theorm, doesn't prove the existence of God ... even though Godel maintained that it would be proof for God ... if it ever was proven.

... I'll leave it to the metaphysicians to take Godel from here.

oscarBravo · 13-03-2017 12:10AM

J C wrote: »

...there continues to be a rule within science that supernatural causes cannot be scientifically evaluated.

Stop hiding behind the excuse that science doesn't allow evaluation of supernatural causes; start explaining how science could allow such evaluation.

You've hypothesised that God created life. How would you test the hypothesis? It's a very simple question. Imagine a world in which science allowed the evaluation of supernatural causes. In that world, how would science test that hypothesis?

Harika · 13-03-2017 09:14AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Stop hiding behind the excuse that science doesn't allow evaluation of supernatural causes; start explaining how science could allow such evaluation.

You've hypothesised that God created life. How would you test the hypothesis? It's a very simple question. Imagine a world in which science allowed the evaluation of supernatural causes. In that world, how would science test that hypothesis?

Science ruled out the test for god, as science dug deeper and deeper, and God was not found. Like 500 years ago, God was proclaimed to be in the sky, then men reached the sky with planes and no god. So god moved to space and men reached space and still no god. So religion claimed god as untestable as outside the realm of reality.

Harika · 13-03-2017 09:17AM

J C wrote: »

Here is an example of a paper that got through ... but subsequently was witdrawn.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035

It was withdrawn as the guy claimed (among other things) the earth to be 10000 years old and discarded all research or findings of science. As he had no proof for his believe it had to be retracted as it was not withstanding any scrutineering.

Peregrinus · 13-03-2017 09:20AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Stop hiding behind the excuse that science doesn't allow evaluation of supernatural causes; start explaining how science could allow such evaluation.

You've hypothesised that God created life. How would you test the hypothesis? It's a very simple question. Imagine a world in which science allowed the evaluation of supernatural causes. In that world, how would science test that hypothesis?

Before we imagine a world in which science could test supernatural claims, don't we first of all have to imagine a science which could test supernatural claims?

The foundational axioms of the scientific method absolutely invalidate any scientific attempt to test a non-natural claim. This is an inherent limitation of the scientific method. So, if we image a "science' than can test supernatural claims, it has to be something which is radically different from the science that we actually have.

So, in the world we are imagining, how would this "science" test supernatural claims? Well, that would have to depend on what the foundational axioms of this "science" were. The question you pose can't be answered until those axioms are identified.

Absolam · 13-03-2017 09:28AM

Don't we first have to imagine that there is something non-natural to be tested?

Peregrinus · 13-03-2017 10:05AM

No. We just have to image that there is a non-natural claim to be tested - e.g. God is the author of creation, man is born free, good consists in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, women have the right to choose. The hypothesis is that there exists a "science" than can test any or all of these claims with the same degree of reliability that attaches to scientific tests about claims dealing with empircially observable phenomena.

Absolam · 13-03-2017 12:38PM

Are they non-natural claims though? Aside from 'God is the author of creation' all of the rest would be philosophical assertions; they're not founded on anything physically measurable, I think, but does that make them non-natural? The claim that 'God is the author of creation' on the other hand, involves a physical element, creation, which distinguishes it a bit. A claim of physical effect I would say requires physical evidence of the effect.

Peregrinus · 13-03-2017 01:12PM

The scientific method as we know it depends on making empirical observations, and obviously you can only empirically observe that which is empirically observable. God as the condition without which creation could not be is not empirically observable, but neither are "freedom", "goodness" or "rights", which are the subjects of the other three claims I mentioned.

It's not a given that an epistemology capable of investigating claims about God in the way that science investigates claims about material reality could equally well investigate claims about freedom, rights or goodness. But I mention all those other claims as a way of indicating what kind of epistemology we are being asked to hypothesise here.

As for all the rest being philosophical assertions, yes, they are. But "God is the author of creation" is also a philosophical assertion, surely? It's clearly a theological assertion, and theology is generally seen as the branch of philosophy which addresses questions about God.

......... · 13-03-2017 07:55PM

Science deals with only the physical, it makes no attempt to examine, and has no tools for the purely spiritual / non physical.
True science and true religion don't contradict each other because what's true is so, and what's not isn't.

MrPudding · 13-03-2017 08:09PM

J C wrote: »

... so you're a geocenterist then Mr P?

I am not sure you understand what thinking something is laughable means...

To give another example, I think creation "science" is laughable.

MrP

Morbert · 13-03-2017 08:17PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Before we imagine a world in which science could test supernatural claims, don't we first of all have to imagine a science which could test supernatural claims?

The foundational axioms of the scientific method absolutely invalidate any scientific attempt to test a non-natural claim. This is an inherent limitation of the scientific method. So, if we image a "science' than can test supernatural claims, it has to be something which is radically different from the science that we actually have.

So, in the world we are imagining, how would this "science" test supernatural claims? Well, that would have to depend on what the foundational axioms of this "science" were. The question you pose can't be answered until those axioms are identified.

I'd say you and oscarBravo agree. It seems to be JC that is insisting supernatural claims are within the scientific wheelhouse.

J C · 13-03-2017 09:38PM

Absolam wrote: »

Are they non-natural claims though? Aside from 'God is the author of creation' all of the rest would be philosophical assertions; they're not founded on anything physically measurable, I think, but does that make them non-natural? The claim that 'God is the author of creation' on the other hand, involves a physical element, creation, which distinguishes it a bit. A claim of physical effect I would say requires physical evidence of the effect.

You are correct Absolam ... that if God is the author of Creation, you would indeed expect physical evidence of such an act of Creation ... and, unlike the other philosophical examples listed by Peregrinus (man is born free, good consists in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, women have the right to choose) which cannot be tested by science ... the physical evidence of Creation should be there for all to see and to scientifically evaluate ... if conventional science were of a mind to do so ...

... but as has already been agreed conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena ... and so by a very convenient self-serving atheistic/antitheistic rule, at the heart of conventional science means that will need never to be bothered by God.

... it's like the Medieval Church banning all questioning of its ideas ... only, this time, its Atheism and its fellow travellers who are doing it.

J C · 13-03-2017 09:45PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure you understand what thinking something is laughable means...

To give another example, I think creation "science" is laughable.

MrP

Your patronising sarcasm does you and me no good Mr P.
... please be nice to your fellow Human Beings ... if only for your own health and happiness.

With genuine love and affection for you ... and I truly mean that.

... lets be friends, even if we disagree about God.

J C

J C · 13-03-2017 09:49PM

Morbert wrote: »

I'd say you and oscarBravo agree. It seems to be JC that is insisting supernatural claims are within the scientific wheelhouse.

I am certainly not insisting that supernatural causes are allowed to be tested within conventional science ... my point is the polar opposite ... that conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes of physical phenomena.

... and as far as I can see nobody is disagreeing with me on that.

We may disagree on the reasons for the ban ... but we are all in agreement that a ban exists, I think.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments