Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dredd, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    The opposite is also not falsifiable

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No... when did you understand logic in the first place

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Oh dear you still fail to follow.
    Science could show that creation is not necessary, but theists could still make the counter claim that I noted above.
    Get it?

    Really?
    No, not really.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Spidergoat is the one who brought up the question of 'falsifiable' not me... that was supposed argument against creation.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Now you're skipping around.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Science never has shown creation is unnecessary. Because the underlying process that leads to these mechanism to work is always unknown. I don't expect you to 'get it'.


    Yes really...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Hardly, but if you can't see the line of reasoning there's no point me continuing.

    Hence the word "could".

    Hence the continuing pursuit of physics.
    We find underlying processes all the time.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Mystics should at least be aware of the limits of their ideas. If they aren't falsifiable, then they aren't very useful except to talk about.
     
  10. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Okay maybe its too advanced for me :shrug:

    Okay, at least you agree that it "has"n't.


    Great.... Suppose it turns out all of the universal processes are in a 'cycle'- then the obvious question will be how did the cycle start- we're going to end up with chicken or the egg type dilemma in the end- even if we did find out all the processes. So even then creation 'could' not be deemed 'unnecessary'. But that is only my opinion... I'll be long dead before we are at this stage.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    And things that are unfalsifiable in science won't be deemed 'mystics'- I see

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Let's say person A suggests to person B certain truths. These truths cannot, now at least, be falsified. Nevertheless upon hearing these truths, person B feels more optimistic - or some other positive quality. Have we not now demonstrated 'usefulness'? Despite the lack of falsifiability. Many non-religious concepts function the same way.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    If they cannot be falsified, then no label of truth can be applied to them. I'm talking about even a theoretical falsification, not something that might be able to be falsified at some later date if we had the technology.
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    It doesn't matter, you clearly don't understand the concept of falsifiability. If you say creation can't be falsified, it is then utterly useless as a concept.
     
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Same goes for the opposite side. Secondly the place you quoted I messed up the word should have been 'falsified' not 'falsifiable' but I guess latter is also true.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    So science can not be labeled truth... I always knew this..

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855

    What exactly is that supposed to mean? What opposite?
     
  18. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    The universe is 'uncreated' - this can't be falsified because for this to be falsifiable you need to know if it is 'created' or not which is unfalsifiable... So both positions are unfalsifiable.

    Also science only studies the 'natural'- but the problem is you guys need 'scientific proof' for everything in other words you're saying everything is happening due to some 'natural' cause. 'Natural'- this is also unfalsifiable - if something weird is going on 'scientists' can always say, its happening via unknown mechanism just as you blame theists to do it for their God like Dywyddyr was saying.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    strange how you place the two on the same footing
    one says..."we do not know", the other... "we know"
     
  20. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    The supposition is 'we know' its natural. Because otherwise where is the proof? You're never going to get 'proof' so it isn't there..


    The reason they are on equal footing is because the assumptions behind 'natural' and 'random' make it so.... Logically they are not on the same footing, but the moment you try to understand science then they are on the same footing, this was the point of 'God of Science' thread.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I see you have adopted Hay_you's method of debate.
     
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Well I've been arguing that some aspects of science are unfalsifiable, and then you say that such thing can not be labeled truth... It is only a logical conclusion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The notion that the universe was created or uncreated is not falsifiable, and thus not scientific. Science cannot say that the universe was definitely not created by a deity.

    Science can say that the Big Bang or life itself did not need a creator in order to come about. Occam's razor comes into play here, since a complex creator at the beginning of time is much more unlikely than not, given that the complexity we observe came about as the result of a time-dependent evolutionary process (nothing complex was possible until the universe cooled).

    The supernatural is always a possibility when there is no other plausible naturalistic explanation (proven or not). I don't say that evidence for a deity or other supernatural thing (or their necessity as a means of explanation) will never be discovered, only that up to this point, it has not.

    The state of science as it is today does not support or require the intervention of a deity.

    I think the function of mystical thinking is to exercise and challenge science in order to assist in it's growth and discovery.
     

Share This Page