Replying to a lack of reason with reason

Post Reply New Topic

I probably am smarter than them, it is statistically probable that I am. Not because of any quality, religion, spirituality, illogical nonsense, etc. Just the fact they are a human being, I am statistically likely to be smarter than them. But I don’t think intelligence is wholly responsible for someone being illogical like yourself. It may be a contributing factor, but it is not the primary culprit.

Oh, and thanks for conceding that your position has no evidence.

Ps. Maybe the problem with your claim that people have evidence, they just cannot provide it, might just lay with your misunderstanding of the meaning of “evidence”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Look it up, maybe we can get somewhere if we are on the same page about simple word meanings…(Hint, if evidence cannot be provided, it is by default not evidence, see the following)

I think you're just wrong about what science is. The idea that science requires repeatable experiments is a weird definition that doesn't capture the essence of science.

I think that science is about coming up with models that attempt to describe the physical world. In that sense, miracles are in fact stepping on the toes of science. Say that I have a model of the world where everything in the world is an emergent effect of physical laws, and there is no outside influence. Well, by postulating a miracle, you are in fact saying that my model is wrong, and that I need a more complicated model.

Science doesn't require repeatable experiments to measure something. In this case, it would be a matter of anomalies that cannot be explained by natural means. If a supernatural entity wants to remain hidden it can do so, however in order to interact with the world it would have to interact with the laws of nature. An interaction with the laws of nature can be measured if it is of a great enough magnitude. As I've said before, one can add enough conditionals to make an idea irrefutable, however that doesn't add credence to the idea.

Um, I suppose you have a point but I think Declension answered this question pretty well. Some scientists do believe in God or at least some sort of abstract "higher power"

Not much more to say, other than the moment a person starts talking about religion logically is the moment I begin to suspect whether they are truly religious in the common sense of the word.

I always thought religion was about blind faith.

The problem arises when people maintain blind faith in the face of reason and evidence to the contrary, and then act upon that fallible blind faith to affect the lives of others so as to spread their irrational blind faith, and in doing so are acting to the detriment of human collective understanding.

Blind faith in something abstract is mostly irrelevant.

I've never heard of a definition of science that didn't insist on the repeatability of experiments, at least when it's attainable. Observing a rare event, like a supernova, is a one-shot kind of thing, but even there they try to get more supernova observations and compare them.


That, or the model has certain limitations.

I don't think it makes sense to say that miracles are 'stepping on the toes of science'. Miracles are by definition exceptions to the way things ordinarily happen, science is about our best understanding of how things ordinarily happen.

If a miracle was some sort of event, observable and measurable. I think science would set to the task of understanding it. We would eventually come to some theory of miracles, and understand the inner workings of them. Miracles would be assimilated into science. (Imo, this will be handled my neuroscience )

If a miracle is not some sort of measurable or observable event, science cannot really break them down...as they are not happening.

I find myself becoming more thesist every day, but sometimes I question my ideology b/c a miracle will happen. Not a miracle in a sense where I recover from a car accident or something of the sort, but I'll have enough money for this and that. Maybe it's my expert budgeting skills from years of living alone and experimentation (that's also a scientific and rational explanation) but there are other dots that I've connected in the past that I can't explain with science.

But this is where it gets tricky because everything has a history and has to relate back to something so just b/c I can't explain it with science doesn't mean that the situation that altered my situation wasn't affected by another science and so fourth. Kinda like the koch snowflake theory.