Guest makapaka Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 I don’t believe in the supernatural personally - but I think humans are very arrogant in terms of scientific ability. even though we have achieved great things as a species - to assume these achievements represent the total limit of reality is arrogant. There is sure to be vast amounts of information we have yet to learn, understand or even consider and saying “we can rule out” assumes we have far more knowledge than we actually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, Cyclone said: Can't you actively rule out the supernatural if you're trying to find a natural cause for something? In fact, if by definition anything you find is natural then by definition it's impossible to find anything supernatural and indeed impossible for anything supernatural to exist. Whatever you find, no matter how exotic or unusual, by definition is natural. Perhaps it's the wording "ruled out" that is the problem. "Dismissed as without any possible basis in reality" would cover it more accurately perhaps. You could I suppose, but why even consider the supernatural, until it's demonstrated to exist? It would be theoretically dismissing something that you don't even know anything about what you're dismissing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, makapaka said: I don’t believe in the supernatural personally - but I think humans are very arrogant in terms of scientific ability. even though we have achieved great things as a species - to assume these achievements represent the total limit of reality is arrogant. There is sure to be vast amounts of information we have yet to learn, understand or even consider and saying “we can rule out” assumes we have far more knowledge than we actually do. I think the scientific field is the least arroga nt, part of the method is actually trying to prove a claim to be wrong, only coming to a conclusion when there is supporting evidence. The arrogance comes from those who claim to have answers, without a shred of supporting evidence. Edited April 1, 2019 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 You aren't considering it, if it's summarily dismissed. By definition there's nothing to consider if you're looking for a natural cause for something. It's dismissing something that literally CANNOT exist with the framework of the attempt to investigate the natural phenomena that drive the universe. 23 minutes ago, makapaka said: I don’t believe in the supernatural personally - but I think humans are very arrogant in terms of scientific ability. even though we have achieved great things as a species - to assume these achievements represent the total limit of reality is arrogant. There is sure to be vast amounts of information we have yet to learn, understand or even consider and saying “we can rule out” assumes we have far more knowledge than we actually do. Science makes no such assumption. Science, or more specifically the scientific method is a way of investigating things. It's not a body of knowledge really, although investigations often build upon the outcomes of earlier investigations. Obviously there is far more to learn, that's kind of why the scientific method exists, to continue to explore and learn in a structured, logically rigorous way. Ascribing anything to the supernatural is the opposite of that, it's laziness in the extreme, it's throwing up your hands and saying "we don't know how it works, so we'll make something up without evidence to support it, simply so that we have an easy answer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Cyclone said: You aren't considering it, if it's summarily dismissed. By definition there's nothing to consider if you're looking for a natural cause for something. It's dismissing something that literally CANNOT exist with the framework of the attempt to investigate the natural phenomena that drive the universe. I think we're bordering on semantics now. 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Semantics is very important. You can't discuss something unless you all agree what the words mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Cyclone said: You aren't considering it, if it's summarily dismissed. By definition there's nothing to consider if you're looking for a natural cause for something. It's dismissing something that literally CANNOT exist with the framework of the attempt to investigate the natural phenomena that drive the universe. Science makes no such assumption. Science, or more specifically the scientific method is a way of investigating things. It's not a body of knowledge really, although investigations often build upon the outcomes of earlier investigations. Obviously there is far more to learn, that's kind of why the scientific method exists, to continue to explore and learn in a structured, logically rigorous way. Ascribing anything to the supernatural is the opposite of that, it's laziness in the extreme, it's throwing up your hands and saying "we don't know how it works, so we'll make something up without evidence to support it, simply so that we have an easy answer". I agree regarding the comments on the supernatural. but science is also limited to the extent of a humans ability to understand. Not the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 21 hours ago, FinBak said: What the CMB shows us..... there was a Lot of fluctuating Light around 13Billion years ago. It certainly Does NOT prove, in the formal sense you can prove, with evidence, that there was a BigBang. I didn't mean to say the CMB was false in itself, but the interpretation of it. I'm still waiting for your reasoned argument as to what it is then. Simply saying that "it's not a bigbang because <handwaving> fluctuating light</handwaving>" is not a cogent or coherent argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinBak Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 On 01/04/2019 at 13:55, Obelix said: I'm still waiting for your reasoned argument as to what it is then. Simply saying that "it's not a bigbang because <handwaving> fluctuating light</handwaving>" is not a cogent or coherent argument. A reasoned argument to what the CMB is?... As i have previously said, all the CMB shows us that there was a lot of Light/Radiation 13B years ago. Stars dying and turning into Neutron stars....Black Holes... Stars being Born..... All these things can and do make up the CMB. for all to see. We can observe the CMB only for a fraction of TIME. ! But all the while things are happening. ! Future observations of the CMB.. say in 1Billion years from now, will tell EXACTLY the same story as it is NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinBak Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 On 01/04/2019 at 12:38, makapaka said: I agree regarding the comments on the supernatural. but science is also limited to the extent of a humans ability to understand. Not the other way round. I agree. On 31/03/2019 at 16:26, Robin-H said: And what are your scientific credentials? Do I need any scientific credentials to state what I have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now