Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic". Natural science is about the fact that at standard temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure, distilled water boils at 212 degrees (fahrenheit). Every time. Not 220 degrees sometimes and 200 degrees other times. Absolute zero is at zero degrees Kelvin. Everytime you measure it, everywhere. Natural law is what it is-- the supernatural can be anything, anytime, if God wants to make light, then there's light. If he wants a blood to rain from the sky, it rains from the sky. . . that is not natural science.raum wrote:Says you.deepsepia wrote:That's funny. By definition, the supernatural cannot be quantified.raum wrote:Well, when I hear people say supernatural, they can never quantify it.]
doesn't matter "who I am declaring it to." Doesn't matter who does the measuring. "Life" is an objective chemical process. We can say "a dog is alive" and "an oak tree is alive" and a coffee cup is not alive. These are not opinions. These are not supernatural. They are very straightforward chemical processes that either are happening, or are not happening. They can be measured by "believers" or "unbelievers" or by machines and the answers don't change. The moment my cellular enzymatic activity stops, I'll be dead. That's true of me, and virtually every other living thing (spores and viruses being curious cases that sit somewhere between life and non-life)raum wrote: The very fact that you say "I am alive" is 'supernatural'. Who is it you are declaring that to?
Bacon disagrees, as do I -Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic".
WRONG!Natural science is about the fact that at standard temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure, distilled water boils at 212 degrees (fahrenheit). Every time. Not 220 degrees sometimes and 200 degrees other times. Absolute zero is at zero degrees Kelvin. Everytime you measure it, everywhere.
Actually, there is a school of Scientific illuminism that believes there are Laws of Nature, and they are not yet fully discovered and may even grow and change in stages, and that they ARE transparent on a level of some consciousness that "trickles down" into our manifestation; which as a purpose or exists as a by-product.Natural law is what it is-- the supernatural can be anything, anytime, if God wants to make light, then there's light. If he wants a blood to rain from the sky, it rains from the sky. . . that is not natural science.
um, my definition of the supernatural is firm. That which is observable and yet untestable by the current conventions of Science.the supernatural, on the other hand, changes all the time. No scientific statement can be made about the supernatural-- other than that it is inconsistent with natural law. In the supernatural domain, people can walk on water, turn into wolves, live to 1000 years, rise from the dead. We have no objective data demonstrating any of these things happening, ever, and they are not consistent with what we know of the natural world.
But wait, when I said I was observed by instrument and physician to be dead, and lacked all vital signs, you stated I was not still dead, because I am still alive. You can't have both: either the observations made by machines and men of science were inaccurate, or I was dead, and you were mistaken. your stated opinions leave no room for something called anomaly.doesn't matter "who I am declaring it to." Doesn't matter who does the measuring. "Life" is an objective chemical process. We can say "a dog is alive" and "an oak tree is alive" and a coffee cup is not alive. These are not opinions. These are not supernatural. They are very straightforward chemical processes that either are happening, or are not happening. They can be measured by "believers" or "unbelievers" or by machines and the answers don't change.
I assert I won't be dead. You assert you will. How is my assumption any more wrong than yours? To me there is a state between thought and matter, and it also can neither be created or destroyed. I have observed that to be true consistently.The moment my cellular enzymatic activity stops, I'll be dead. That's true of me, and virtually every other living thing (spores and viruses being curious cases that sit somewhere between life and non-life)
Francis Bacon died in 1626. Many "scientists" of the day believed in alchemy, magic, and so on. With the tools they had available at the time, they didn't know better. Bacon's science is of philosophical and historical interest, but cannot be regarded as methodologically valid. The folks at CERN look to Bacon for poetry, not the behavior of sub atomic particles.raum wrote:Bacon disagrees, as do I -Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic".
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/bacon/miracle.htm
Nope. You misunderstand me. I cite the boiling of water as an example. Macroscopic physical systems operate the the same way all the time.raum wrote: So for you, natural science is about heat and water?
I cannot say that there is no supernatural event which will occur. I can say that natural science gives you no basis to make such a statement. Your statement is akin to: "When I die, my soul will flow out of my body, and fly to interplanetary space to a distant planet, where it will inhabit a new body." Could that be true? Yes. Is there any evidence to believe that its true? No.raum wrote: I assert I won't be dead. You assert you will. How is my assumption any more wrong than yours?
No, that is merely something that you think. There is no measurable objective evidence for such a statement. When I say, "I am alive" -- I can show you an EKG, an EEG, and metabolic data which would satisfy anyone that the subject is indeed a living human.raum wrote: To me there is a state between thought and matter, and it also can neither be created or destroyed. I have observed that to be true consistently.
I would argue the opposite. I think religious dogma used to occupy most of what we regarded as real and unknown, and science, by its method has slowly pushed the mysteries of our planet and what we know of the universe back and unveiled explanations. They are revised and updated, sure but it beats having to be afraid of an angry god every time lightning strikes. My point is now that science brings new revised findings, religion simply says: "God did it" as if somehow this 'seal of approval' renders all the hard work they never bothered doing into an automatic "win". The only way "something from nothing" works is when a god, created, rehashed and made king, is put in the mix. Otherwise, it requires "a valid argument". Please.Furthermore, when something occurs that is Scientifically discredited that religion or folklore or ancient thought held true; Science cautiously absorbs it, and then says "this works, and thus can not be evidence of anything other the superiority of secular science.
We all agree, I hope.The truth is we still know so little about the world, the universe, or even ourselves... and yet some people are so quick to say what there is or what there isn't. Such rash children!
...Then I stand by statements I have made in the previous discussion's we've had. Do we really need to devote ourselves and offer prayer and praise, to this essence? This ghost in the machine that is as dependent on our conscience as we are on his approval and is as real as we make it out to be, just as well dismissed?There are also those who believe the earth is overpopulated, and the forces of a Supersentient balance of universal forces have no vested interest in the personal health of every single person, due to the instablity of overpopulation.
Damn, did I just read that right..? From my point of view, didn't you just qualify what at least 4 other people in this thread have been trying to say (more or less) for like 10 pages..? Your beef with the existence of God seems to be based on the one presented in the bible, and I'm pretty sure that I said that several times...All this talk about Supernatural, walking on water, the lord paying my bills this month, and Michael Jackson being black again at the snap of a finger has led the sheep away from the flock...Nobody said that in trying to define God...You could just as easily say God/Gods exists in the things we do not yet understand as much as the things we do and think we do...deepsepia wrote:I cannot say that there is no supernatural event which will occur. I can say that natural science gives you no basis to make such a statement. Your statement is akin to: "When I die, my soul will flow out of my body, and fly to interplanetary space to a distant planet, where it will inhabit a new body." Could that be true? Yes. Is there any evidence to believe that its true? No.
Is there logical dispute in that claim..? I don't think so...Shit goes down everyday we can't quantify or put it in a little category and tuck it away...Known unknowns, unknown unknows, remember that little spill..? It makes sense...raum wrote:That which is observable and yet untestable by the current conventions of Science.
I think everyone here who regularly posts pulls their own weight, and we tend to keep it off of other people's toes... for the most part. And we have done a damn good job of keeping the drama out.Kumicho wrote:The site is just so much better when you and raum are here x3n...No disrespect to anyone else, but you guys are just the best IMO...When it comes to challenging thoughts, and great discussions, there is just no substitute...Welcome back old friend...Try to leave again, and I will find a way to hurt you...
The difference in those four people saying it, and deep saying it is only athiests make sense. Mystics and Religious people just don't seem to make sense, even if they same the same thing, because the labcoat of the scientist is the only true cassock of the priest.Damn, did I just read that right..? From my point of view, didn't you just qualify what at least 4 other people in this thread have been trying to say (more or less) for like 10 pages..?
No one yet has ever told me what I myself have witnessed. And yet what I witnessed encompasses everything I have ever heard proposed. Your statement cracks me up!Your beef with the existence of God seems to be based on the one presented in the bible, and I'm pretty sure that I said that several times...All this talk about Supernatural, walking on water, the lord paying my bills this month, and Michael Jackson being black again at the snap of a finger has led the sheep away from the flock...Nobody said that in trying to define God...You could just as easily say God/Gods exists in the things we do not yet understand as much as the things we do and think we do...
buleedat!Is there logical dispute in that claim..? I don't think so...Shit goes down everyday we can't quantify or put it in a little category and tuck it away...Known unknowns, unknown unknows, remember that little spill..? It makes sense...
Truth.A stance of 'There is no God' will falter if you admit the possibility of such a thing existing, period...If it can exist, it does...