Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sasquatch

Greetings

Recommended Posts

Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums.

 

Question: When there is no way a question can be answered through a naturalistic means what alternative is there? Deductive logic says that when all is eliminated whatever is left must be the answer. And when a totally natural answer will not work then the supernatural is all that is left. Of course if you have another alternative I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

 

Hello! Love your forum name. The Big Hairy Truth is Out There! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

 

We don't believe in God because we simply don't know of other alternatives. We believe in God because there are good reasons to believe that God exists. When we approach it by looking at the evidence and following where it leads, then it is not an argument from ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Spectre, I personally have never seen any evidence or any good reasons to believe in God and the whole concept is strange to me. I am however intererested in the mindset and reasoning of people as to why they believe in whatever God or supernatural entity that they do. It's quite interesting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

 

 

What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe.

 

My example here are the biochemical pathways in a cell. This is no conceivable method that such systems could have "evolved" by a bit-by-bit naturalistic process, and in some areas it shows where there must have been an element of intelligence in order to create such systems.

 

The only logical conclusion is an intelligent agent, and since this is talking about the creation of life itself it must be supernatural

 

 

 

Furthermore there are also philosophical evidences and evidence of logic as well as the theological evidences. I gave an example of natural evidence since that is generally the only thing the atheist accepts, (sorry to use / assume a generalization)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

 

Eliminating an answer because you prefer not to believe it is not actual science. The scientific method demands that you follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. Do you deny this? Or is the scientific method just a suggestion of rules meant to be broken whenever someone decides they don;t like where the evidence leads?

 

Also are your opinions the way that everyone should follow or is science and the scientific method?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

 

Except for when science rules out the naturalistic methods, and then you are only left with the supernatural...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

 

Well you see there you go. The main reason God or the supernatural cannot or never will be found by science is because of your way of thinking that makes sure it cannot and never will be allowed to be found. Are the naturalists so afraid of God that they cannot ever allow themselves to consider it so they make rules that allows them not to ever have to look in that direction? I find that funny.

 

And your claims that it's beyond the realm of science to study. If that's the case then what you are here actually doing using science contradicts that. Because if science cannot make a conclusion concerning the supernatural or God then to what end do you use it to try and discredit these things when you cannot even test for these things as you claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has science ever determind a supernatural explanation Gilbo? Just because somthing is unexplained does not mean that it is supernatural,or paranormal. Because you cant imagine a natural explanation then it must be supernatural is fallicious reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike, What has science ever verified or validated of the supernatural?.I think what you are refering to is pseudo science which pretends to be part of the world of science but actually lacks all elements of logical, scientific determinants. Science and pseudo science are totally opposed to each other. Pseudo science is easier to create and understand than real science. Pseudo science deals with appearances whereas real science deals with repeatable and objectively observable facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe.

 

My example here are the biochemical pathways in a cell. This is no conceivable method that such systems could have "evolved" by a bit-by-bit naturalistic process, and in some areas it shows where there must have been an element of intelligence in order to create such systems.

 

The only logical conclusion is an intelligent agent, and since this is talking about the creation of life itself it must be supernatural

 

 

 

Furthermore there are also philosophical evidences and evidence of logic as well as the theological evidences. I gave an example of natural evidence since that is generally the only thing the atheist accepts, (sorry to use / assume a generalization)

 

 

I explained it here.... Please read my posts

 

 

Many evolutionists prefer to ignore the biochemical problems of evolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike, What has science ever verified or validated of the supernatural?.I think what you are refering to is pseudo science which pretends to be part of the world of science but actually lacks all elements of logical, scientific determinants. Science and pseudo science are totally opposed to each other. Pseudo science is easier to create and understand than real science. Pseudo science deals with appearances whereas real science deals with repeatable and objectively observable facts.

 

LOL, so the only way to discredit the supernatural is to make fun of it? Quite lame but nice try,

 

I find that when atheists like yourself resort to these things it's because your science cannot back up your "opinions" on the matter. So keep it up you prove my point with every post. Make sure that your next post even pokes more fun because I know you can do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it Gilbo, However I fail to see how because you see that there is "no concievable method how such systems could have "evolved" the logical answer is a supernatural one. Because one doesnt know somthing doesnt mean that the answer is supernatural. Claiming that the answer is supernatural is extraordinary and that requires extraordinary proof. My take on it is that humans are subject to many unforeseen events.This can be a powerful motivator for a belief in the supernatural and God. The appeal of the God lies in the erroneous assumption that certain supernatural powers or beings can provide security in a very insecure world. So my question is Gilbo, if somthing is inconcievable to you and you conclude that the answer must be supernatural then how do you confirm and validate that conclusion via science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to discredit or make fun of the supernatural. I'm asking for not only scientific evidence of the supernaural but how science can or does go about studying the supernatural? Where has the supernatural been verified within the world of science? I fail to see how and unanswered question about the natural world has a supernatural answer by default. There has to be some quantifiable and real world scientific evidence for that to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it Gilbo, However I fail to see how because you see that there is "no concievable method how such systems could have "evolved" the logical answer is a supernatural one. Because one doesnt know somthing doesnt mean that the answer is supernatural. Claiming that the answer is supernatural is extraordinary and that requires extraordinary proof. My take on it is that humans are subject to many unforeseen events.This can be a powerful motivator for a belief in the supernatural and God. The appeal of the God lies in the erroneous assumption that certain supernatural powers or beings can provide security in a very insecure world. So my question is Gilbo, if somthing is inconcievable to you and you conclude that the answer must be supernatural then how do you confirm and validate that conclusion via science?

 

It isn't inconceivable to just me, it is inconceivable to science. As I said in the opening when science ITSELF refutes a natural bit by bit process. Don't try and assert scientific understanding as my own opinion.

 

When you have feedback loops preventing one process by the exclusion of a product of another then you have observable cases of irreducibly complex systems that literally cannot have existed partially and been built up from there. Remember in order for a system be selected for it must give a fitness advantage, hence EVERY single stage must have a fitness advantage... Yet these feedback loops mean that there is NO advantage until the system is functional as it depends on the other systems being in place for it to function at all.

 

This is observed and documented, hence the logical conclusion is that the system was in place in its entirety... Which of course invokes an intelligent agent. Its not hard logic, it just may be hard to swallow.... when naturalistic science debunks any attempt at a naturalistic method / cause.

 

 

Hence your question was answered by my first sentence... (hence why I asked you to read my post...)

 

" What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe."

 

The evidence of this is the example I have given

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if the logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent is behind it, then how do you test that statement? How has it been tested? How do you go about proving that? What scientific studies have done to show that a supernatural intelligent being or agent is behind the natural world? It seems that from reading the transcripts from the Dover trial, that advocates of ID had a wide open opportunity to present their case and bring the scientific evidence for ID to the table. However they failed to do that and what they presented was severly lacking as far as science goes. I am open to any valid scientific studies that present any evidence for the supernatural. So if you have any, please show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if the logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent is behind it, then how do you test that statement? How has it been tested? How do you go about proving that? What scientific studies have done to show that a supernatural intelligent being or agent is behind the natural world? It seems that from reading the transcripts from the Dover trial, that advocates of ID had a wide open opportunity to present their case and bring the scientific evidence for ID to the table. However they failed to do that and what they presented was severly lacking as far as science goes. I am open to any valid scientific studies that present any evidence for the supernatural. So if you have any, please show me.

 

Its a logical conclusion.... You cannot scientifically test logic

 

 

Please test the laws of logic

Please test the laws of science

Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices

etc etc etc ad nauseum

 

Asking "how do you test the supernatural" is totally missing the point. However for the sake of argument the exclusion of a non-design process via science only leaves a designed process... Hence there is no need for "evidence of the supernatural".

 

However adding on from that if life was formed by a designed process then that is inferring a supernatural intelligence as we are discussing the formation of life itself and thus we would need an intelligence outside of naturalistic "life"... thus supernatural.

 

 

 

EDIT: also asking to test a logical conclusion would lead to an infinte regress as you would then need to ask to test the conclusion of the tests you did on the original conclusion, and then test the conclusion that was made about the test of the original conclusion.... This is what I'd like to call the Dawkins fallacy, (from the who designed the designer argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to discredit or make fun of the supernatural. I'm asking for not only scientific evidence of the supernaural but how science can or does go about studying the supernatural? Where has the supernatural been verified within the world of science? I fail to see how and unanswered question about the natural world has a supernatural answer by default. There has to be some quantifiable and real world scientific evidence for that to be so.

 

You just claimed the the supernatural cannot fall within the scientific realms of the scientific method, did you not? So why ask a question that you already deem unanswerable? Because it allows you to state the same thing again. And what's even more ironic about the whole thing is that just about everyone in science disagrees with the supernatural so it's only logical to conclude that science will always be bias and make sure that the supernatural never get's tested.

 

But let's put one of your theories to the test that the supernatural is not testable and repeatable.

1) How many people over the years have accepted Christ as their savor? millions right?

2) How many people among that group will also say they had a supernatural experience? Millions right?

 

So by the people claiming the same thing and it being repeatable millions of times means what? It means that the process is:

1) Observable.

2) repeatable.

3) Can be experienced by the individual.

4) All the above means it's also empirical.

 

Also there are people from all faiths and walks of life that have had Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and once they got past their life flashing before their eyes, if they saw anything it was always the same thing. And these include:

 

1) People who never heard of Christ.

2) People who are against Christ.

3) And believers.

 

This has been repeated 1,000's of times with the same results. They either saw:

 

1) A place they would deem as Heaven full of love etc...

2) A place full of fire, torment, and hatred.

 

And because these things can be repeated in people who did not know, were against, or believed this makes it also empirical.

 

Now the only way you can reject this is out of a bias opinion that God does not exist and there is nothing I can say that will change that, right? So fore go the scientific method so that you can continue to disbelieve, it really makes no difference to me. You guys break those rules everyday so it's nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Sasquatch! :)

 

I am glad to see that you didn't join immediately but took the time to "follow the forum". To me that is important. I did so too, and I think that it witnesses to your advantage. We are a little tired of all the atheists/evolutionists that just waltz in here and just think they know it all and only come here with the intention to "educate" us.

 

But anyway, let me just pick up on something you said here:

 

When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one

This is a common objection, and I can agree with you up to a certain point. But what makes these discussions so difficult is that, within science, there is no measurable point that we can agree apon that defines the boundary between what is "common sense" and "nonsense".

 

For example, there are probably countless examples of things that we "don't have an anser to", without necessarily invoking any "supernatural" explanation. But does that mean that there is no limits involved?

 

I think there is a boundary somewhere, beyond which we must ultimately ask ourselves whether a naturalistic explanation is "reasonable".

 

Is the linear/symetric patern in a snowflake enough to cover all the incredibly complex mechanisms and decision-making logic we can observe in the simplest form of life?

 

I have been working with complex logical systems for 27 years and I realize that anything complex can ultimately be reverse engineered and broken down into a number of simple binary instructions. But does reverse engineering explain how such complexity arose in the first place? Complexity, even incredible complexity, is easier to explain that logic!

 

Logic might be composed of complex elements. But the complexity of logic is not as easily broken down as complexity that lacks logic.

 

If anything in the natural world has the kind of logic that processes information, then that is an example of intelligence.

 

Either this intelligence arose internally, or externally. There is no other choice.

 

So how does something that lacks a brain know how to process information? Can intelligence somhow be splashed together without anyone with intelligence doing the splashing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).

 

Problem is you do the very same thing. Leaving the only possibility for every explanation to only point towards the naturalistic view of evolution is basically saying: evolution did it and I don;t care what you say. Evolution did it or God did it same difference when there is only one possibility you will even ponder. So ironically what you accuse others of doing you do yourself,

 

Also about thinking for ourselves. Do you not belong to a group that does not allow people like myself to be a part of it unless I think like your group does? Same difference.

 

I'm going to church now but I'll be back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont belong to a group, (unless you consider Rockabilly subculture) a group, but that doesnt apply here. I stand by what I say that God of the gaps is not a sound answer for what we do not know about the natural world. It is ludacris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms