skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Metacrock » Sun May 14, 2017 1:14 am

He can;t understand the distinction between not seeing a law maker for the cosmos and seeing there being no law maker. my statements in bold


skeptical;:
OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientists saying that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. Fine I already knew that, and I don't dispute it. But then (if I follow your line of "reasoning"), you think that because these human formulations of physical laws are not prescriptive (which is to say that man does not tell nature how to behave), then it follows that nature isn't bound by them, and therefore, any behavior is allowed. So miracles can happen. Is that what you are saying?

Me:
that's like saying isn't it amazing that all these state lines just happen to fall the way the rivers flow? TRY IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! since there is no law-like force that tells nature what to do and since our descriptions of what happens can't be totally actuate the objection to miracles that we never see them has to be flawed,since our observations are not complete maybe we do see them,when we have examples those expels could be true.

This is stunning. You have apparently no grasp whatsoever of what physical laws are. It is true that we don't tell nature how to behave.

Obviously I do since you just agreed that what I say about it is right,what you really mean is, in addition I am taking a step further that takes you down the road that you have not considered and you are disinterested philosophically, That makes you afraid so you cling to the ideology all the more. then you have to evoke the "you don't know anything I'm smarter than you in an attempt to convince yourself you are on the right track

Nevertheless, we observe that nature does behave according to some set of rules that are never violated.

Lesson from Popper you can never say "never" because you can't observe it forever.So any assumption of never is always just an assumption; since the argument is that our observations can't be 100% then there is always room for a miracle. Don't try to pretend that you have some kind of mathematical accuracy that proves your judgement of "never." your"never" is not mathematical it's probability and that means always open to difference.


This has nothing to do with whether there is a law-giver. It's just how nature works.

I am not makimng a law giver argument,I am just setting the context, that was explaining the context of the quotes.


It's what we observe.

I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.

And it is the fact that we observe these regularities of behavior that we can conclude that there are no miracles.

you only conclude that on the basis of the circular reasoning that allows you to ignore the previous examples of miracles.

A miracle would, by definition, be something contrary to the way nature works.

Don't you know what descriptive means? IF DESCRIPTION IS NOT 100% you can't say never.


But nature doesn't do that - it works the way it works. And the way nature works is what we call the laws of physics. There are no miracles. Period.

Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%.


Joe Hinman said...
I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.

Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%.




Are you joking? The thing we don't observe is this lawmaker, or God or whatever mythical being you think exists because of YOUR circular reasoning.

that is not the same as observing there is no law makimng. Obviously there is reason to think there is one since there is a law-like regularity you can't assert that not seeing a lawmaker is the same as seeing there is none, We don't see air.


What I'm saying is that in 100% of our observations, there is a regularity of nature.

Nope, you that;s BS. there are anomalies, especial in terms of healing and miracles,(btw the term anomalies comes fr alpha privative for "not" and Greek word nomos for law so it means not a law).

Now that doesn't preclude the philosophical possibility that there could be some as yet unseen thing that violates natural laws, but it does provide justification for inductive conclusions consistent with what we see.

It also opens the door to marginalized observations being accepted since there is no law or structure forbidding such behavior it's purely a mater of what we see we konw we don't see it all.


You, on the other hand, have never seen this lawmaker - you have 0% of all human observations to back up your contention, but you still insist that he must be there, and miracles must exist, because if these fantasies weren't true, it would really upset your apple-cart. And you think that I'm the one who isn't being logical.

I felt his presence and seen his work. One should not expect to see God like saying why believe in subatomic particles if you haven ever seen then,we don't have no pictures of them ,we have no pictures of stings but science is willing to accept them purely on the bass i of theory,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by The Pixie » Mon May 15, 2017 4:59 am

The laws of science are descriptive. They describe what we observe in nature. Newton's laws are a fair approximation, relativity is a better approximation. Many of the laws of nature are so well established that for all practical purposes we can say they are never broken, or we can say within these limits they are never broken. Newton's law are never broken in systems away from huge masses. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are never broken in the macroscopic world.

There may be laws of nature that are prescriptive, laws that the universe has to follow, and that the laws of science approximate too. My guess is that that is the case; or rather, there is one prescriptive law of nature. These laws are not like legal laws. Legal laws need a law maker, they also need law enforcers andthey also need people to choose to keep to them. Not so the laws of nature.

I would define a miracle as an event that break the laws of nature; an event caused by God (or some other supernatural agency) who resides outside our universe, and can do something despite the laws of this universe (like using a cheat code in a video game).

Although our laws of science are approximate, the only way we have to determine if an event was a miracle is whether it contravenes the laws of science. For some events, that would be easy (water to wine, walking on water or restoring an amputated limb for instance), however there will be some events that we cannot decide one way or the other. We know cancer sometimes goes into remission and people recover from diseases; we cannot say if events like that are within the laws of nature or are miracles. Not yet, anyway; as medical science advances I would guess that one day we will.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Metacrock » Mon May 29, 2017 12:30 pm

you are just regurgitation the ideology you are not thinking, I can show you examples of major physicists saying it;ls descriptiveness then when they need it to be talki=ng like it;sa real law,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

JBSptfn
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by JBSptfn » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:49 am

Now, on the CADRE (and his blog), Skep is going on about how Joe needs to be with science or not. What a moron. He is stuck in the science=physicalism only program.

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Jim B. » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:54 pm

JBSptfn wrote:Now, on the CADRE (and his blog), Skep is going on about how Joe needs to be with science or not. What a moron. He is stuck in the science=physicalism only program.
that's why I try to avoid interactions with him. Like arguing with a Stalinist in the 30's. He who does not gather scientific data, scatters.

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by The Pixie » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:38 pm

JBSptfn wrote:Now, on the CADRE (and his blog), Skep is going on about how Joe needs to be with science or not. What a moron. He is stuck in the science=physicalism only program.
If by physicalism, you mean anything that is physical or supervenes on the phyical, then that is how it is. Anything outside of that cannot be observed, and so is not science.

If you are restricting physicalism to the purely physical, this is just a straw man.

JBSptfn
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by JBSptfn » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:01 pm

The Pixie wrote:
JBSptfn wrote:Now, on the CADRE (and his blog), Skep is going on about how Joe needs to be with science or not. What a moron. He is stuck in the science=physicalism only program.
If by physicalism, you mean anything that is physical or supervenes on the phyical, then that is how it is. Anything outside of that cannot be observed, and so is not science.

If you are restricting physicalism to the purely physical, this is just a straw man.
What do you mean by that?

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Jim B. » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:53 am

The Pixie wrote:
JBSptfn wrote:Now, on the CADRE (and his blog), Skep is going on about how Joe needs to be with science or not. What a moron. He is stuck in the science=physicalism only program.
If by physicalism, you mean anything that is physical or supervenes on the phyical, then that is how it is. Anything outside of that cannot be observed, and so is not science.

If you are restricting physicalism to the purely physical, this is just a straw man.
That's not what physicalism means. it's not the same as science, it's a metaphysical doctrine.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by The Pixie » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:14 am

A simplistic definition of physicalism is that physical matter is all that exists. However, it is pretty clear that other things do exist, and so I am sure that IMS does not hold to physicalism in this sense. If JBSptfn is using physicalism in this sense, he is guilty of a straw man, so let us assume he is not.

From Jim's link:

"Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical."

And later:

"If physicalism is construed along the lines suggested in (1), then we have an answer to the completeness question. The completeness question asks: what does it mean to say that everything is physical. According to (1), what this means is that if physicalism is true, there is no possible world which is identical to the actual world in every physical respect but which is not identical to it in a biological or social or psychological respect. It will be useful to have a name for physicalism so defined, so let us call it supervenience physicalism."

All our senses are physical (in this sense), our eyes detect photon emissions, our eyes detect vibrations in the air, etc. Whatever we can sense must, therefore, be physical.

If ghosts exist, then to be detectable by the senses they must be capable of interacting with the physical world. Okay, but what if they only do so intermittently? Perhaps only when they choose to? Such a ghost would be detectable by the senses, but could not be successfully studied by science. Popper defined a physical proposition to be one which can at least in theory be denied by observation (see here). I can claim there is a desk in the room, and this can be denied by the obserrvation that the room is free of desks. I can claim there is a ghost in the room; this cannot be denied by observation as we cannot know if the ghost is present but choosing not to manifest.

That does not mean physicalism is necessarily true, only that science is restricted to it. This is generally called methodological naturalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:44 am

Physicalism is not science it;s a philosophy,It doesn't just say we can't study stuff that isn't physical of course we can that's why we have psychology,it/s saying stuff that isn't physic doesn't exist, they would have to be able to study it to say that in science.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply