Christianity/Catholisim - DPChallenge Forums

04/09/2009 02:59:29 PM · #201

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

The closed minded guy in the video who saw ghosts in the lampshade failed to use all the tools at hand before he resorted to supernatural explanations. But had there been no heater, and had he been scientific and isolated the lampshade from outside sources of natural influence, and had it kept moving anyway, then an open mind has to consider the movement supernatural.

I for one know that the supernatural exists. I also know UFOs exist.

No, the point of the video was that an open mind would consider the movement unexplained. There must be some other force that hasn't been eliminated yet because lampshades don't just move by themselves. Something must be physically acting upon it. Attributing something to the supernatural is declaring that you KNOW the explanation when in fact you don't. A closed mind simply jumps to the predefined conclusion. UFOs are simply unidentified. That's why they're called that.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 15:02:37.

04/09/2009 03:00:51 PM · #202

Originally posted by scalvert:

No, the point of the video was that an open mind would consider the movement unexplained. Attributing something to the supernatural is declaring that you KNOW the explanation when in fact you don't. A closed mind simply jumps to the predefined conclusion. UFOs are simply unidentified. That's why they're called that.

But interestingly some will say, "it's unexplained" but silently add "but I KNOW there is a natural explanation". These people return to being close-minded.

04/09/2009 03:09:22 PM · #203

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But interestingly some will say, "it's unexplained" but silently add "but I KNOW there is a natural explanation". These people return to being close-minded.

Believing there must be a logical explanation (natural) is not the same as saying you know what it is (supernatural). The former is the source of curiosity that leads people to look for explanations (open-mindedness). Did you even finish watching the video?

04/09/2009 03:12:08 PM · #204

Perhaps a more basic example of something that may exist but is outside science is the Multiverse. It is possible the multiverse exists in a way exactly like you and me and the sun and our universe. It is physical and one could "touch it with their hands". However, proof of the Multiverse is completely outside the realm of Scientific experimentation. I'm not saying we don't have the tools, I'm saying it would be impossible, by definition, to probe something outside our universe.

So do we just dismiss the Multiverse? Or can we use logic, thought experiment, inference, and deduction to weigh in on whether it exists?

04/09/2009 03:12:58 PM · #205

Originally posted by eqsite:

And so how do you know we haven't availed ourselves of all possible scientific explainations for the unknowable things? Just because science hasn't shown what thoughts are doesn't mean it won't.

Because science is not capable of explaining all things by its nature. Science is constantly checking its assumptions and trying to gather and integrate new data. It will never be certain because it can never close a field of inquiry and say "There, we are finished, we know all things that are knowable about that". This is not a defect of the scientific method, but its greatest strength.

Faith can close the book and say "No more". Science can't.

04/09/2009 03:14:19 PM · #206

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But interestingly some will say, "it's unexplained" but silently add "but I KNOW there is a natural explanation". These people return to being close-minded.

Believing there must be a logical explanation (natural) is not the same as saying you know what it is (supernatural). The former is the source of curiosity that leads people to look for explanations (open-mindedness). Did you even finish watching the video?

It's not the same in that it may not be as specific. It IS the same in the sense that one says, "the answer falls within this category (natural or supernatural)". The supernatural guy may blame "ghosts" though, which is a specific answer within the category of supernatural and I agree it is unreasonable to assume such a specific thing.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 15:16:00.

04/09/2009 03:15:27 PM · #207

Hey Brennan, you are relatively new to these discussions. What's your background story? I find some of your answers interesting and I can't quite "figure you out". :)

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/09/2009 03:25:13 PM · #208

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Science is constantly checking its assumptions and trying to gather and integrate new data. It will never be certain because it can never close a field of inquiry and say "There, we are finished, we know all things that are knowable about that". This is not a defect of the scientific method, but its greatest strength.

Which makes science more open-minded, no?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/09/2009 03:27:55 PM · #209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Perhaps a more basic example of something that may exist but is outside science is the Multiverse. It is possible the multiverse exists in a way exactly like you and me and the sun and our universe. It is physical and one could "touch it with their hands". However, proof of the Multiverse is completely outside the realm of Scientific experimentation. I'm not saying we don't have the tools, I'm saying it would be impossible, by definition, to probe something outside our universe.

So do we just dismiss the Multiverse? Or can we use logic, thought experiment, inference, and deduction to weigh in on whether it exists?

I bolded what I'm responding to. This, is being close-minded. Why is it 'impossible'? It may be improbable, but it is in no way outside the realm of scientific experimentation. Perhaps currently, but who knows what the future holds? This isn't outside science, it is merely theory that will have to wait for another time, and nobody is basing their morality and worldview on its possibility, like people do their god(s).

04/09/2009 03:32:49 PM · #210

Heck I can't figure me out, so ...

One sentence summaries are tough. For the purpose of this thread, I'm a big fan of Gould's separate magisterium, and believe our world rests on a three legged stool of art, science, and faith.

04/09/2009 03:34:11 PM · #211

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The supernatural guy may blame "ghosts" though, which is a specific answer within the category of supernatural and I agree it is unreasonable to assume such a specific thing.

Supernatural as a category is no more reasonable than ghosts specifically. Either way, you're claiming to have an explanation... and one with a pretty dismal track record: millions of examples where we've discovered there really was a natural explanation vs. zero where the explanation actually turned out to be a ghost/gremlin/demon/witch/alien/etc.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Faith can close the book and say "No more". Science can't.

Closed book = closed mind. If you think you have all the answers, you stop asking questions. If you don't, then you're still open to possibilities.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 15:35:09.

04/09/2009 03:35:27 PM · #212

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why do you feel that logic, though experiment, inference, and deduction are not part of the Scientific Method? One very famous thought experiment (Einsteinâ��Podolskyâ��Rosen) led to some very real advances in understanding quantum physics (even though they were trying to discount it by their though experiment).

04/09/2009 03:43:38 PM · #213

Originally posted by eqsite:

Which makes science more open-minded, no?

When it is being used properly, yes. But eugenics and phrenology are branches of science that veered into the arenas of close minded faith, scientific faith, measuring less and less, more and more accurately that they knew everything about nothing.

Science is a tool and it can be used well or poorly.

04/09/2009 03:46:06 PM · #214

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Which makes science more open-minded, no?

When it is being used properly, yes. But eugenics and phrenology are branches of science that veered into the arenas of close minded faith, scientific faith, measuring less and less, more and more accurately that they knew everything about nothing.

Science is a tool and it can be used well or poorly.

I couldn't agree more. The same could be said for any human construct.

04/09/2009 03:58:43 PM · #215

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The supernatural guy may blame "ghosts" though, which is a specific answer within the category of supernatural and I agree it is unreasonable to assume such a specific thing.

Supernatural as a category is no more reasonable than ghosts specifically. Either way, you're claiming to have an explanation... and one with a pretty dismal track record: millions of examples where we've discovered there really was a natural explanation vs. zero where the explanation actually turned out to be a ghost/gremlin/demon/witch/alien/etc.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Faith can close the book and say "No more". Science can't.

Closed book = closed mind. If you think you have all the answers, you stop asking questions. If you don't, then you're still open to possibilities.

These two statements seem to contradict each other. To say that it is important to keep an open mind, but dismiss the possibility of the supernatural? Rather than saying Supernatural, lets call it Unexplained. Supernatural has become the province of TV shows and Ouija boards. To quote or former Secretary of Defense in a whole new context "There are known knows, and there are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns."

The supernatural, or that set of things outside the commonly understood laws of nature, was long long ago such things as, why the sun rose and set, or rain lighting and wind happened. The fact that we understand now what causes weather and global rotation has taken them from the supernatural into the natural. But the more we learn the more we find that there is to learn.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/09/2009 04:06:59 PM · #216

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps a more basic example of something that may exist but is outside science is the Multiverse. It is possible the multiverse exists in a way exactly like you and me and the sun and our universe. It is physical and one could "touch it with their hands". However, proof of the Multiverse is completely outside the realm of Scientific experimentation. I'm not saying we don't have the tools, I'm saying it would be impossible, by definition, to probe something outside our universe.

So do we just dismiss the Multiverse? Or can we use logic, thought experiment, inference, and deduction to weigh in on whether it exists?

Why do you feel that logic, though experiment, inference, and deduction are not part of the Scientific Method? One very famous thought experiment (Einsteinâ��Podolskyâ��Rosen) led to some very real advances in understanding quantum physics (even though they were trying to discount it by their though experiment).

Because, specifically, they aren't. The Scientific Method "consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation. This may involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Thought experiments and inferences and deductions of logic are tools that can be used by science, but aren't exclusive to it. Also, when people demand "proof" on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific Method rather than thought experiment and inference and deduction.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 16:07:31.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/09/2009 04:08:15 PM · #217

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...trying at life to the best of your abilities.

Whoa. I've had this conversation before, but do you REALLY think anybody falls into this category?

HA... ok ok. lol. I think you took this too literally. Do I think anyone does? Sure. There are some people out there that do. I guess what I meant was to live your life, do what you can in it, and be a good person, in your own eyes as best you can. We can go on and on about what THAT might mean too, understandably. I dunno, out of everything I said, why pick apart the semantics of that sentence? I think you got my main point did you not?

04/09/2009 04:10:10 PM · #218

Originally posted by scalvert:

The person who says, "It's unexplained but the answer is natural." claims to have an explanation as much as the guy who claims a generic "supernatural" explanation.

04/09/2009 04:13:14 PM · #219

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...trying at life to the best of your abilities.

Whoa. I've had this conversation before, but do you REALLY think anybody falls into this category?

HA... ok ok. lol. I think you took this too literally. Do I think anyone does? Sure. There are some people out there that do. I guess what I meant was to live your life, do what you can in it, and be a good person, in your own eyes as best you can. We can go on and on about what THAT might mean too, understandably. I dunno, out of everything I said, why pick apart the semantics of that sentence? I think you got my main point did you not?

Maybe. One one hand "best" is such an unforgiving, hard-edged word. On the other hand "in your own eyes as best you can" probably includes everybody. So it seems you are either saying nobody is "good with God" or everybody is. If there's a line somewhere that divides people, I'd be afraid you are following human nature and setting that bar just below your feet. "I'm good enough (perhaps barely), but there are lots of people out there who aren't."

04/09/2009 04:17:01 PM · #220

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps a more basic example of something that may exist but is outside science is the Multiverse. It is possible the multiverse exists in a way exactly like you and me and the sun and our universe. It is physical and one could "touch it with their hands". However, proof of the Multiverse is completely outside the realm of Scientific experimentation. I'm not saying we don't have the tools, I'm saying it would be impossible, by definition, to probe something outside our universe.

So do we just dismiss the Multiverse? Or can we use logic, thought experiment, inference, and deduction to weigh in on whether it exists?

I bolded what I'm responding to. This, is being close-minded. Why is it 'impossible'? It may be improbable, but it is in no way outside the realm of scientific experimentation. Perhaps currently, but who knows what the future holds? This isn't outside science, it is merely theory that will have to wait for another time, and nobody is basing their morality and worldview on its possibility, like people do their god(s).

Couldn't that whole argument be said about God (up to the morality part)? But certainly worldviews are based upon where we came from so I reject the idea that the multiverse doesn't play a role in our worldview (even if we don't consciously think about it).

The point is God and the Multiverse are identical in the eyes of science. Either they both belong to it or they both do not. You cannot include one and exclude the other. To do so is logically inconsistent.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 16:18:05.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/09/2009 04:18:12 PM · #221

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You conveniently left off this line from your citation from that page: be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Thought experiments and logic would fall under the umbrella of reasoning.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/09/2009 04:19:50 PM · #222

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Picking things apart with Semantics is what we DO, it's what we LIVE for, to help unfortunate forum-folk like yourself, poor souls, with no-one else to turn to!

I admit that in the past I've been a nasty
they weren't kidding when they called me, well, a jerk
But you'll find that now-a-days, I've mended all my ways
repented, seen the light and got to work. True? Yes...

And I fortunately know a little humor,
It's a talent that I always have possessed,
and dear Lady please don't laugh,
I use it on behalf,
of the DPCers that always seem so stressed! (and lonely)

Poor unfortunate souls,
in Rant, in need
This one wanting to change voting
that one wants to rule the world,
and do I tease them?

Yes indeed...

Those poor unfortunate souls,
so mad, so stewed
They come flocking to the forums
crying "Listen to me!"
And I mock them, yes I do.

Now it's happened once or twice
Someone thought I wasn't nice,
and I'm afraid I got my ass raked on the coals,
yes I've had the odd beat-down
but on the whole, I'm just a clown,

To those Poor unfortunate SOOOOUUUUULLLSS!

04/09/2009 04:20:56 PM · #223

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because, specifically, they aren't. The Scientific Method "consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation. This may involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Thought experiments and inferences and deductions of logic are tools that can be used by science, but aren't exclusive to it. Also, when people demand "proof" on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific Method rather than thought experiment and inference and deduction.

You conveniently left off this line from your citation from that page: be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Thought experiments and logic would fall under the umbrella of reasoning.

So are you saying that in the original question of "proving Christianity" (which is, at large, proving God) I am allowed to present thought experient and logical inferences and deductions as proof?

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 16:21:58.

04/09/2009 04:41:07 PM · #224

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because, specifically, they aren't. The Scientific Method "consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation. This may involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Thought experiments and inferences and deductions of logic are tools that can be used by science, but aren't exclusive to it. Also, when people demand "proof" on these threads, they are almost always pointing to proof through the Scientific Method rather than thought experiment and inference and deduction.

You conveniently left off this line from your citation from that page: be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Thought experiments and logic would fall under the umbrella of reasoning.

So are you saying that in the original question of "proving Christianity" (which is, at large, proving God) I am allowed to present thought experient and logical inferences and deductions as proof?

No, what I'm saying is that thought experiment, logical inferences, and deductions when used with observation and experiment may be used as proof. You may build such an argument and long as, at it's core, it rests on reproducable observations.