This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Tartonga
Wasn't trying to argue it, just painting how the Church defines a miracle, as Tartonga asked.
You know, I can actually picture you guys trying to pronounce my name, lolol. I bet it does sound weird.
It doesn't matter whether it's constant or repeatable, the key question in this instance is: "if something is demonstrated to be impossible according to science, and it occurs, is it natural or supernatural?"
Well, I guess it would be classified as supernatural until someone can prove the opposite. Isn't that what happened through history anyway? I mean, people gave metaphysical explanations since the beginning of everything to explain what noone could explain. Then later on, when different sciences appeared, supernatural phenomenons began to be classified as natural, because people understood why they happen (that doesn't mean they were right though).
However, here is the catch: people, or at least some, nowadays are not used to the word supernatural. They attribute whatever reason or cause to whatever, even though they don't even know how to argument about it or they argument it without proof. For example, if you tell me that someone was cured from cancer through only faith healing, I will tell you:"that's BS, or either he did medical treatment or he wasn't sick". Could that have happened? Yes, it could. And I personally wont believe it can happen until there is a scientifical sustained explanation about it. But I guess that's part of my arrogance.
In fact, look at my argument! I say this is the cause and I don't have proof!
EDIT:
I still don't believe anything defined as impossible according to our current models has been shown to occur. If it can, then our models should be changed, but at best all you can say is "
You can't explain that.
"
LOL.
First comment: "We are supposedly the most intelligent species on the planet. O'Reilly has a tv show. You can't explain that."
That guy deserves a medal.
Post by
Orranis
It doesn't matter whether it's constant or repeatable, the key question in this instance is: "if something is demonstrated to be impossible according to science, and it occurs, is it natural or supernatural?"
Then the definitions of natural/scientific theory that states otherwise will have to be rectified. If it happens, than obviously it can happen, and then obviously the scientific theory that states otherwise is incorrect, and our knowledge of the universe must be remodeled around the new data.
Post by
Squishalot
What makes 'God exists' an invalid remodelled theory on how the universe works?
It seems like the both of you (Skree and Orranis) are working on the presumption that God doesn't exist, and that all events in the universe must have some sort of natural basis. The problem is, 'God exists' is a valid natural theory, that you're choosing to ignore.
Post by
Tartonga
I also assumed that God doesn't exist. Why wasn't I taken in account D:? /glare
Anyway, I was about to say that you cannot call "God exists" a
theory
because it's not falsifiable. If it can't be falsifiable, then it's not a theory.
Post by
Squishalot
If it can't be falsifiable, then it's not a theory.
Why? To either bit, really.
a) Prove that it's not falsifiable.
b) Demonstrate why a non-falsifiable concept cannot be a theory.
Post by
Orranis
What makes 'God exists' an invalid remodelled theory on how the universe works?
It seems like the both of you (Skree and Orranis) are working on the presumption that God doesn't exist, and that all events in the universe must have some sort of natural basis. The problem is, 'God exists' is a valid natural theory, that you're choosing to ignore.
Because it's unnecessary. You can poke holes in current scientific theory, but that still doesn't prove that God exists, only that the theory is wrong. To prove God exists, you have to put forward actual proof why God exists, not just a reason why current scientific theory is wrong. Let's pretend for a minute, that we had proved beyond all doubt that prayer has a direct positive effect on healing, that was not a placebo. That doesn't necessarily mean it's because God exists. Even if I could find no other alternative, that still doesn't mean God exists. I'd definitely give the idea a lot more thought, but I wouldn't accept it in the same way I can accept the idea that beyond the starry skies there are other planets.The point is that you have to prove not only that it helps, but that God's doing it. Until then, as Skree said, there's nothing but "Can't explain that!" It's the falsification that there's black and white, and if scientific theory is wrong, X religion is correct.
Of course I'm working on the presumption that God does not exists, because I'm working on the presumption that every other thing not present in current scientific theory does not exist. If I were trying to prove God's existence, I'd create experiments around the presumption that God exists.
I'd like a little more of an explanation on the 'natural bias' point though.
Post by
Squishalot
The point is that you have to prove not only that it helps, but that God's doing it.
The whole point of 'scientific
theory
' is that it hasn't been proven. Why are you willing to accept scientific theories without proof, but not religious theories without proof? Correlation experiments? Insert Einstein's quote here.
I'd like a little more of an explanation on the 'natural bias' point though.
I didn't say anything on 'natural bias'. What are you talking about?
Post by
Orranis
The point is that you have to prove not only that it helps, but that God's doing it.
The whole point of 'scientific
theory
' is that it hasn't been proven. Why are you willing to accept scientific theories without proof, but not religious theories without proof? Correlation experiments? Insert Einstein's quote here.
Proven ≠ No Proof.
I'd like a little more of an explanation on the 'natural bias' point though.
I didn't say anything on 'natural bias'. What are you talking about?
What makes 'God exists' an invalid remodelled theory on how the universe works?
It seems like... you... are working on the presumption... that all events in the universe must have some sort of natural basis.
Post by
Tartonga
b) The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad for three very practical reasons. First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.
a) How can you disprove that "God exists"?
Post by
Orranis
b) The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad for three very practical reasons. First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.
This is a load of unspecific drivel. It's very possible that a theory is completely correct. It's that we can't know for 100% sure if it's completely correct. The theory's statement must be backed up by evidence, not make statements about evidence.
a) How can you disprove that "God exists"?
You don't have to. That's a rule of logic. The one who makes the statement must prove it.
Post by
Adamsm
Squish said basis not bias lol.
Post by
Orranis
Squish said basis not bias lol.
...What is with me?
Post by
Adamsm
Even funnier because you quoted it again lol.
Post by
Squishalot
b) The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad for three very practical reasons. First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.
Orranis has answered that moreorless for me. If a theory is not falsifiable, it's impossible to prove that it's not correct, no? Therefore, it has a possibility of being correct.
a) How can you disprove that "God exists"?
You don't have to. That's a rule of logic. The one who makes the statement must prove it.
Of course I'm working on the presumption that God does not exists
What was that about making statements and proving it?
Proven ≠ No Proof.
Where are you trying to drive this? You're trying to force the Church to a greater burden of proof for their theory that a healing event is a God-caused miracle than science would have to provide for any 'scientific' theory. That is flawed - the same burden of proof should apply to both science and religion.
Post by
Tartonga
This is a load of unspecific drivel. It's very possible that a theory is completely correct. It's that we can't know for 100% sure if it's completely correct.
That's flawed logic. How can you say a theory is correct if you are not sure if it's correct?
The theory has to make strong statements about evidence.
The theory's statement must be backed up by evidence.
Do you care to explain how both sentences do not imply the same?
a) How can you disprove that "God exists"?You don't have to. That's a rule of logic. The one who makes the statement must prove it.
What...? Ok, listen...Once upon the time there was this cool dude called Karl Popper who came with a great idea called Falsifiability, and I will quote this from wikipedia:
Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.
My point to Squish is that "God existence" is not falsifiable and thus not considered a theory.
If a theory is not falsifiable, it's impossible to prove that it's not correct, no? Therefore, it has a possibility of being correct.
An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactly identical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory. So, there is no reason to believe.
Post by
Squishalot
That's flawed logic. How can you say a theory is correct if you are not sure if it's correct?
Using your argument, prove to us that anything is correct. In fact, just prove anything to us. You won't be able to, because it's impossible to. All we can have is a satisfactory level of confidence in a theory.
My point to Squish is that "God existence" is not falsifiable and thus not considered a theory.
/facepalmfail
You took the quote completely out of context. The point about theories being falsifiable isn't that all theories must be falsifiable, it's that a single false result can 'disprove' a theory.
You're making the claim that religion is not falsifiable, and thus making a statement that needs to be proven. I happily await your proof.
Post by
Tartonga
That's flawed logic. How can you say a theory is correct if you are not sure if it's correct?
Using your argument, prove to us that anything is correct. In fact, just prove anything to us. You won't be able to, because it's impossible to. All we can have is a satisfactory level of confidence in a theory.
I repeat:
The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.
---
My point to Squish is that "God existence" is not falsifiable and thus not considered a theory.
/facepalmfail
You took the quote completely out of context. The point about theories being falsifiable isn't that all theories must be falsifiable, it's that a single false result can 'disprove' a theory.
You're making the claim that religion is not falsifiable,
and thus making a statement that needs to be proven
. I happily await your proof.
Wrong. I say "God existence" is an unfalsifiable theory. What does that mean?
An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactly identical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory. So, there is no reason to believe.
Post by
Squishalot
I repeat:
The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.
And it's still irrelevant. If something is not falsifiable, it doesn't say anything about whether you should accept it as truth.
I say "God existence" is an unfalsifiable theory.
That is the statement that needs to be proven by you. After all, I believe that God existence is theoretically falsifiable to the extent that every scientific theory is falsifiable.
Post by
Tartonga
I repeat:
The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.
And it's still irrelevant. If something is not falsifiable, it doesn't say anything about whether you should accept it as truth.
If something is not falsifiable and you accept it as a truth; that something is called
belief
.
I say "God existence" is an unfalsifiable theory.
That is the statement that needs to be proven by you. After all, I believe that God existence is theoretically falsifiable to the extent that every scientific theory is falsifiable.
I am proving to you that "God's existence" is not falsifiable by not being able to disprove it.
That's why I asked you: How can you disprove "God's existence"?
Post by
Squishalot
If something is not falsifiable and you accept it as a truth; that something is called belief.
You misunderstand what 'falsifiable' means. Falsifiable means that it can be proven to be false. It doesn't say anything about whether it's true. Something can be proven to be true (to the extent that anything can be 'proven') yet be unfalsifiable. If God materialised, religion could be proven true, and therefore it is provable. Yet, religion cannot be proven 'false'.
Going on to the rest of what you quoted:
A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations
1) Religion describes a large class of observations. Tick.
2) Religion makes definite predictions about observations of God. Tick.
Therefore, it's a valid theory. Whether it's 'good' is a question of how accurate those predictions are.
I am proving to you that "God's existence" is not falsifiable by not being able to disprove it.
That's not a proof. Making that argument is evidence towards the conclusion that you're unintelligent. Try again.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.