I agree 100%. The late Stephen J. Gould wrote a good article about this idea. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
Even if there are ghosts, ESP, telekinesis... there is no supernatural. If they exist they are natural. Strictly speaking, science can't address claims that can't be tested or reproduced. One great example of the so-called supernatural is blind sight. Before we understood it, it would certainly have qualified as evidence of a sixth sense, which it literally is. So it was only something supernatural until we understood it. Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight Bottom line: They are blind people who respond to visual cues of human emotion and expression. Without seeing it, they still perceive certain visual information. It is a form of sight without seeing.
Yes, I don't think divine knowledge obtained directly from God qualifies as science. Science is a search for facts and models that explain how the universe works. God is omniscient so it isn't a search for knowledge. Maybe God can make a mathematical prediction unique to his explanation of something like entanglement, and prove it is correct. Science doesn't distinguish between gods and mortals. The requirements are the same.
I started using "supernatural" as a shorthand for that which can not be tested. Typically speaking, the soft sciences of psychology, etc., are significantly less rigorous than are the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology. One of several reasons is that there are huge limitations that come with having human subjects - leading to experiments that are poorly controled as well as a lax attitude in rejecting papers that aren't rigorous in terms of methodology. We've seen this in the news every once in a while, with "p--hacking", etc. So, I do not accept this "blind sight" idea as part of science so far.
What did this response have to do with my post? Where have i argued or suggested that science can find God? This is a strawman..
That's not an assumption. It's a rhetorical comment. If, for the purposes of a logical argument, you want to call it an assumption, can you argue that it's not true?
I repeat: I have presented a model of origins. There are basically 2 models: 1. Goddidit 2. Nuthindidit The first sees the evidence through a premise of an Intelligent Designer, while the latter sees it through the premise of atheistic naturalism. The SCIENTIFIC response is to plug the evidence into either model, and see which fits better. That does not PROVE either model (which are both unprovable premises), but only reveals which model has the most credibility, plausibility, and evidence. I reject the bigoted, biased assumption of, 'Creationism is religion! Atheism is science!' That is a propaganda meme, by pseudo-science pretenders.
Mocking, glad handing, bandwagon guffawing, and ad hominem based replies are inappropriate in a scientific thread, examining empirical facts. There are plenty of other places where political or religious polemy can take place. Why not examine the science, in a science thread?
Maybe because you started with claiming to have met the creator? In trying to establish how this creator "accomplished this feat of creation," you shift the focus. No scientific explanation for creation or evolution needs to concern itself with a supreme being unless you want to prove the existence of that being. It might have better to leave out all mention of a god.
How is that personal belief incompatible with the premise of an Intelligent Designer? That justifies mocking and ridicule, in a scientific discussion?
Sure, like it can't be both. Giving it maximal benefit of the doubt, it's either an unfounded assertion or a self-evident truth; and if the latter, it would appeal to a standard of perfection that doesn't yield such a preposterous assumption about human nature as you offered upthread. Things being what they are, it's clearly nothing but a self-serving conceit.
Not at all. If you took it that way, I apologize. I was merely pointing out that you brought the question of a creator into this in your OP. It's natural that others will comment on that.
NO! I was responding directly to your post where you stated a methodology for using science to determine whether there is a god - whether "god did it". The primary problem with that is that science can not determine wheher or not there is a god, let alone what a god might do now or might have done in the past. You're continuing to post religion and religious "logic" in this section that is reserved for science. You should have your threat moved, as it has nothing to do with science.
So the way you figure it, if a Creator does exist, an explanation for creation can be perfectly scientific if it utterly ignores the existence of that Creator. Have I got that right? Approved by God. When God reveals it as such.
No, "nuthindidit" is never an answer. Theere are more like 3 answers to questions about our physical universe: 1. goddidit 2. it came from natural processes 3. I don't know If one asks about what came "before" or what is/was "outside" this universe, the answer is "I don't know", because we don't know. LOL!! What "evidence" could possibly conflict with the belief that "god did it"? For absolutely anything that is detected, one can simply apply that answer. It's not even necessary to look for evidence!! I prefer "I don't know" when the answer isn't known. It's the only honest answer.
Not even close. You're really just provoking more questions that can't be answered rationally. How do we know something is approved by god? How do we know when that something is revealed? What exactly is "god"? How can we know that this god exists anywhere other than our imaginations? Or is it perhaps that our existence itself is this god?
I cannot help if some posters engage in off topic speculations, or religious deflections. I have presented a scientific model, with the basic evidence and reasoning, for a premise of a Creator. Others can present their model, arguments, and evidence for the atheistic model, or offer a rebuttal for my model. This is not supposed to be the stereotypical, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war, but these kinds of threads always seem to devolve to such, despite my efforts to keep it on topic.
You have done no such thing. youve made bald assertions and assumptions. You have exactly zero evidence to support the existence of a creator.
Yes, 'Nuthindidit!' is exactly one possibility, in the atheistic model. There are only 2. Ignorance is not a possibility. Reality, regarding the nature of the universe, is an 'either/or' dichotomy: Either.. An Intelligent Designer (or Designers) Caused the universe, life, and man, OR.. random, natural processes did it, without supernatural intervention. These are the POSSIBILITIES, for reality, not the beliefs. 'I don't know!', is certainly a valid belief, but it is not a logical possibility.
