Science can't refute supernatural claims.

It's impossible for science to refute supernatural claims since science presupposes naturalism. Attempting to use science to refute supernatural claims is circular reasoning.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science doesn't presuppose anything. It is the current and dying(along with its spreaders) zeitgeist of Equality that contaminates Academia deeply with a quick profit pyramid scheme of bread crumbs that amounts to nearly zero practical application (otherwise you would leave acadummy to have an actual productive career asap) where old knowledge is thrown out the window because it competes with whatever bullshit these filthy-rich-and-yet-defaulting unis are pumping out. You can generalize it to an anti-individual culture where any knowledge or experience or insight he has are aggressively called Not Science!. Kek it reminds me of the midwit 'correlation is not causation' meme that was repeated by these fake "scientists" trying to look clever

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's easier to use your opponents definitions to refute their claims rather than argue semantics. Scientists adhere to methodological naturalism, so they can't use their theories against supernatural claims without engaging in circular reasoning.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Using their own definitions doesn't work, they are programmed to simply ignore the contradictions because these are dogmas. You have to inject new theory and concepts deeply into the culture to get a good result instead.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't really have a problem with accepting their definition of science and being anti-science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They have no definition of science, it is double meaning emotionalspeak. Only strong individuals are able to define it, neither creationist cattle nor onions eating urbanites fall into the strong individual category that pushes science forward at any cost, no offense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They define science in terms of methodological naturalism, and they define naturalism in terms of a set of approved theories.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ok... and?
    Metaphysics can't actually determine any epistemological truths

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Science depends on metaphysical assumptions, so if metaphysical knowledge is impossible, so is scientific knowledge.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Science depends on metaphysical assumptions
        This sentence is one of the dumbest pseud dog whistles on IQfy. You cannot name 1 (one) nontrivial "metaphysical assumption" of science.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Causality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. In fact science challenges causality, see e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Another example is the Alcubierre drive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neither of those theories violate the metaphysical principle of causality. Also, a big part of statistics is based on determining causation. Causality is absolutely fundamental to science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Neither of those theories violate the metaphysical principle of causality.
            You never studied modern physics apparently. Just as expected from a philosopseud.

            >Also, a big part of statistics is based on determining causation.
            Do I really need to post *le correlation vs causation* meme? Statistics never establish causality. It's amazing how you claim to defend philosophy, yet fail at something as fundamental as Hume's problem of induction. Why are the biggest philosopseuds on IQfy always simultaneously the most ignorant in science AND in philosophy?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You never studied modern physics apparently. Just as expected from a philosopseud.
            OK, explain how either of these theories necessarily violate causality without appealing to a speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics.
            >Do I really need to post *le correlation vs causation* meme? Statistics never establish causality. It's amazing how you claim to defend philosophy, yet fail at something as fundamental as Hume's problem of induction. Why are the biggest philosopseuds on IQfy always simultaneously the most ignorant in science AND in philosophy?
            Statistics presupposes causality. Also, Hume was an idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            OP is just is just a Christgay that wants to play philosophical chess, and thinks he can checkmate proponents of science with his Bayesian inspired pseudo-hypothesis rubbish - which mind you, none of it makes any logical sense. He types a lot of big words, but he is effectively saying nothing.

            I mean, look at this shit:

            >These are basic principles that follow from probability theory. The fewer assumptions, or ad-hoc hypotheses, a theory makes the higher its prior probability is (simplicity). Think Oakham's razor. The more phenomena (evidence) a theory explains, the better the theory is supported by the phenomena (explanatory power). The better a theory's parts cohere with each other, the higher its prior probability (coherence).

            Like as if this Black person is locked-in to chat gpt, while on fricking shrooms, or something.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The principles of Bayesian epistemology follow logically from the probability axioms. These axioms are presupposed by many scientific theories. Also, my original point still holds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Consciousness

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >assumption

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Measurements have meaning
          All truth is found in science
          Life is more than a wet bag of chemistry
          Anything that defies logic cannot happen
          Things have a nature
          If anything can change in nature, it becomes a new thing
          Human knowledge is imperfect
          Knowledge can be perfect
          Testimony from a reliable witness about the results of an experiment are reliable even if the experiment cannot be repeated exactly
          It is better to know a thing from scientific examination than other types of experience
          Having science is better than not having sciences

          Hate on philosophy and metaphysics all you want, but you owe them a dept you cannot repay in science

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All of these are either trivial or cringe. None are necessary for science. You're a pseud, a midwit, and an NPC.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Measurements have meaning
            not an assumption science makes. Measurements are comparisons to an arbitrary standards, if they're the same as a model predicts the model works for this purpose, whatever it "means".
            >All truth is found in science
            Not an assumption science makes. The statement that I had eggs for breakfast today is truth but not scientific knowledge.
            >Life is more than a wet bag of chemistry
            What scientist makes that assumption? Pretty sure the mainstream view is the opposite.
            >Anything that defies logic cannot happen
            Logic is about the laws of thought, not what happens or not. At best you're saying "anything that is unthinkable cannot be thought", woah isn't that deep.
            >Things have a nature
            That's purely semantic, and even then not an assumption of science. If anything science has abolished essentialism.
            >If anything can change in nature, it becomes a new thing
            How is that metaphysical? If something new exists, it exists, that's all you're saying.
            >Human knowledge is imperfect
            Not metaphysical but empirical. I bet ypu don't know what I ate yesterday.
            >Knowledge can be perfect
            Not an assumption science makes. In fact some of its greatest breakthroughs were limitations on our knowledge, like the uncertainty principle.
            >Testimony from a reliable witness about the results of an experiment are reliable even if the experiment cannot be repeated exactly
            The only point of yours that's somewhat salient, but even that is about social trust and not metaphysics.
            >It is better to know a thing from scientific examination than other types of experience
            >Having science is better than not having sciences
            Those are normative statements and have nothing to do with the practice or theory of science. The only assumption here is that people trained to do a certain thing will generally be better at achieving that thing, but that's pragmatic and not metaphysical.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >npc deboonking another npc
            Just one of many examples of your idiocy:
            >not an assumption science makes. Measurements are comparisons to an arbitrary standards, if they're the same as a model predicts the model works for this purpose, whatever it "means".
            That's not how medicine is practiced. That's not how any application of science works. No one just correlates raw data with raw models and leaves it at that. No scientific paper demonstrates raw analysis only.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No one just correlates raw data with raw models and leaves it at that. No scientific paper demonstrates raw analysis only.
            Woah, good that it has nothing to with what I said then. Obviously scientists will theorize, and state the purpose of the measurements they make within their theory/hypothesis. But it is not a *metaphysical assumption* of science that measurements have meaning in and of themselves.
            Maybe my mention of "arbitrary standards" was misleading, it just refers the units being chosen arbitrarily (meter, yard, inch etc). Other than that, I don't know what you mean by "raw" models - is quantum mechanics a "raw" model? Because it developed exactly as I described, as a successful predictive model that dumbfounded all those desperately looking for the "meaning" of it, yet it's perfectly valid science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"arbitrary standards" was misleading, it just refers the units being chosen arbitrarily (meter, yard, inch etc).
            Sure and the values of those units aren't arbitrary. For example: reference ranges for blood tests.
            >But it is not a *metaphysical assumption* of science that measurements have meaning in and of themselves.
            That's a closet gay attitude for numerous reasons. We've been bombarded with televangelist à la Carl Sagan and Neil de Grasse Tyson telling us universe-so-big-earth-so-small must mean that humans are insignificant. Not even once have they stated that's just their interpretation of measurements nor have they stated what scientific purpose such interpretation serves. Weather forecasters make the same mistake all the time: instead of just telling us the expected temperatures they talk in terms like ''cold''.

            What's worse is the pretense that meaning is a human concept that exists independently from the world that humans observe. As if values are completely made up. To clarify: meaning of thing = the degree to which we value thing in decision-making process and the degree to which we find thing rewarding. It should be obvious that what we value is derived from the way the world is and moreover: we don't measure what we don't care about so vice versa a measurement is an expression of what we value.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What's worse is the pretense that meaning is a human concept that exists independently from the world that humans observe. As if values are completely made up. To clarify: meaning of thing = the degree to which we value thing in decision-making process and the degree to which we find thing rewarding. It should be obvious that what we value is derived from the way the world is and moreover: we don't measure what we don't care about so vice versa a measurement is an expression of what we value.
            If you're still defending the point that measurements having meaning is a metaphysical assumption, you're clearly contradicting yourself. By the perfectly sound logic of your points here, measurements have meaning insofar they present certain information that we want to have about the world, having found out empirically that such information exists, is helpful in some way and can be measured in some way. It's literally just a matter of having lived inside the world and trying to make sense of it, progressively cutting off (!) as many assumptions as possible by Occams razor.
            A case in point: Faraday did not know anything about what electric and magnetic fields mean "in their essence", and all speculations about that would have been futile anyway; he and others investigated what effects they had in this or that situation, and then made models that predict those effects on whatever measurements they valued for some practical purposes. The meaning of the measurement is not assumed but established by correlating observations.

            But we could take a simpler angle: if something is to be classed as an assumption, it should at least be logically consistent to assume the opposite, otherwise it's just an inescapable logical fact. So the statement "measurements have no meaning" would, in your own words, translate to "looking at what we care about doesn't give us anything we care about" which is about as sensible as "some bachelors are married".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >about as sensible as "some bachelors are married".
            Let's clarify that misunderstanding. There is no statement that has meaning by itself except in one paradoxical way which is not a bug but a feature: self-reference. All things have form / are regular in measurable ways / are patterns. In other words: each thing is a particular logic and reason starting from a self-justifying premise: to be.
            The answer to why is there something rather than nothing is not that things are of a cause or to an end but that existence justifies itself in various ways. In other words inspired by eastern philosophy: the objects of desire are not goals but means for desire to perpetuate itself. Thus the meaning of a tree is to tree and the meaning of a cat is to cat: to be what it is...

            ...unknown to itself and others because to know is to discern, relate, compare, and measure none of which isolates the form of what things are. Yet no thing is isolated. Every thing is in relation to other things. A lion in a zoo is at least somewhat different from a lion in the wild. That's the debate between essentialism and structuralism isn't it?

            So a measurement has by itself no meaning (other than an observation of an existence that fundamentally justifies itself) because it's not related to anything. Therefore:
            >"looking at what we care about doesn't give us anything we care about"
            is not a contradiction because a measurement of temperature gets meaning only after put into a context like weather forecasting and how people relate numbers to feelings.

            1/2

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now we get to the problem that science does pretend to know how things are in isolation / out of context. For example: testosterone declines with age. That's a devious statement because it's valid, reliable and appealing to common sense which tempts us to overlook for example the societal context of unhealthy lifestyles that exarcebate this decline and the interest of pharma to sell testosterone replacement. The claim that science just measures and correlates outside the context of any worldview is therefore ignorant.

            There is another particular evil we must be aware of: to value what we find useful. Obviously this view would enable deception and tragedy of the commons. Less obvious is that values are not relative like a murder is good for the murderer and bad for the victim. There's a case to be made that religious values resemble an evolutionary game theoretical optimum. For example: encouraging heterosexual monogamy to ensure investment in offspring. So science describes the value system of the universe itself stripped from imagery like going to hell if you cheat.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The premise of your argument is flawed, because it assumes science is actually used and applied for refuting supernatural claims. It's not.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Science is often used against supernatural claims. Atheists will often attempt to refute religious claims by appealing to scientific theories. This is a misapplication of science. You might use science correctly, but many other people misuse science.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >because it assumes science is actually used and applied for refuting supernatural claims. It's not
      Are you moronic? Atheistchuds claim SCIENCE has "disproved" the Bible all the time. It's one of their favorite cope fueled pastimes.
      They claim SCIENCE has "disproved" supernatural claims in bible such as:
      6k year old earth
      universe created in 6 days
      vegetation came before the Sun (most people don't realize that, it proves the days were literal 24 hour days)
      humans came from 2 people

      ...and that's just the first page of the Bible basically.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What exactly is this distinction between natural and supernatural claims that this presupposition is supposedly based on? What makes a claim supernatural?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What makes a claim supernatural?
      When it goes beyond the realm of possible experience.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's possible to experience the effects of creationism, yet creationism is usually counted as a supernatural claim and dismissed on the grounds of methodological naturalism.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >creationism is usually counted as a supernatural claim and dismissed on the grounds of methodological naturalism.
          Because it's a metaphysical/philosophical hypothesis, and not the object of any particular science like physics or biology.

          >beyond the realm of possible experience
          right, so it's essentially an idea with no basis in reality

          Reality as the realm of all possible experience, yes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Creationism is not the object of science because science presupposes naturalism. For this reason, it's circular to attempt to use scientific theories to refute creationism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For this reason, it's circular to attempt to use scientific theories to refute creationism.
            Same reason it's circular to try to prove it this way.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It can be proved without science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just because it can be proved without science doesn't mean it has to be proved at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >beyond the realm of possible experience
        right, so it's essentially an idea with no basis in reality

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nope. Scientists dismiss claims that are within the realm of possible experience on the grounds of methodological naturalism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whatever distinction is used for methodological naturalism.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fellas.

    Science is just a process. A tool. As system by which people investigate observations in nature. They gather data, interpret what the data means and see how it fits current theoretical models. If the empirical evidence correlates with the model closely, then the theory is accepted to be the most accurate model to date, until something better comes along. That's it. Nothing more.

    Science not your emotional support system. It's not there to fill some void in your life, provide answers to your mental hang-ups about religion, spirituality or otherwise. Not it is there to prove or disprove any of those things.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Not it is there to prove or disprove any of those things.
      This is exactly my point. It's too common for people to attempt to use science to disprove supernatural claims, which is impossible. Many scientists are guilty of this. They should stop.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's too common for people to attempt to use science to disprove supernatural claims, which is impossible.
        Conversely, it's also a fallacy to push a narrative of supernatural claims, just because it's impossible to disprove.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          True, but I don't argue for supernatural claims on the grounds that they're impossible to disprove. Also, most supernatural claims can be disproved, just not by appealing to science, and a few supernatural claims can be proved, but not by appealing to science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >few supernatural claims can be proved, but not by appealing to science
            Okay, what does that proof looks like? That is, if you are not using a scientific method, then what other mechanism can you use to provide evidence?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can choose theories based on simplicity, explanatory power, and coherence without assuming naturalism. Also, sometimes there is no reasonable naturalistic explanation that accounts for all of the evidence. For example, abiogenesis and the resurrection of Jesus.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can choose theories based on simplicity, explanatory power, and coherence without assuming naturalism.
            That seems all so very hand-wavy and vague, don't you think? It's almost as if you are alluding to the idea that "faith" can be a reasoning tool to confirm an existence of something.
            >Also, sometimes there is no reasonable naturalistic explanation that accounts for all of the evidence.
            That statement is self contradictory. "Evidence" implies observable explanation of something. If that's true then one is making a naturalistic explanation of that something.
            >For example, abiogenesis and the resurrection of Jesus.
            We haven't observed either events, and yet you make a claim that those things happened. We have proved neither, nor have evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That seems all so very hand-wavy and vague, don't you think? It's almost as if you are alluding to the idea that "faith" can be a reasoning tool to confirm an existence of something.
            I didn't mention anything about faith. These are basic principles that follow from probability theory. The fewer assumptions, or ad-hoc hypotheses, a theory makes the higher its prior probability is (simplicity). Think Oakham's razor. The more phenomena (evidence) a theory explains, the better the theory is supported by the phenomena (explanatory power). The better a theory's parts cohere with each other, the higher its prior probability (coherence).
            >That statement is self contradictory. "Evidence" implies observable explanation of something. If that's true then one is making a naturalistic explanation of that something.
            A phenomenon is evidence for a hypothesis if the phenomenon is more likely given the hypothesis is true than given the hypothesis is false. Look into Bayes Theorem. Supernatural events can create observable phenomena.
            >We haven't observed either events, and yet you make a claim that those things happened. We have proved neither, nor have evidence.
            We can observe the effects of these events, just like we can observe the effects of, but not directly observe, physical forces.
            You should read more about philosophy of science. This is pretty basic stuff that follows logically from probability theory.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now are talking absolute nonsense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You should learn about Bayesian epistemology and probability theory in general. These things all follow from probability theory.
            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Speaking of emotional double speak here it is:
      It is a tool..
      a process..
      Fellas we can't know...

      Stfu stupid midwit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >clutching at straws
        try again brainlet

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is not twitter fren
          Your DnD player/boomer take on science goes straight into the trash

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science only works with falsifiable claims. The supernatural is unfalsifiable. To assert the supernatural is true despite its unfalsifiability is a fallacy. Science has the power to verify certain supernatural claims, but over hundreds of years has been unable to do so. This leaves the supernatural with no evidence of existence

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Counterexample: the resurrection of Jesus could be falsified by finding Jesus's body. Also, many modern scientific theories are not falsifiable. Falsificationism is an interesting idea, but it never actually took off. It's better to just evaluate theories by their simplicity, explanatory power, and coherence .

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the resurrection of Jesus could be falsified by finding Jesus's body
        He resurrected and left a copy behind :^)

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scientific reasoning requires observability. If I make a claim that is unobservable for all practical intents and purposes then there is nothing to prove or disprove. For example, I can claim that god speaks to me and there is no way for you to verify this because you have no way of observing god and his speech so you have no way to verify, prove, or disprove what I am saying about hearing god's speech.

    Supernatural claims are nonsensical because there is no methodology to verify their validity. I can claim all sorts of things about god and you'd just have to accept it on the grounds that they were supernatural claims about a supernatural being who only communicates with me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Supernatural events can have observable effects. They can be verified by evidence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So verify that God speaks to me. You can't because I am the chosen one and he only speaks to me and no one else. Even if you tried to hear him speak you would not be able to do it because my brain is super special and has a direct link to God.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's possible that you have access to information that I don't have access to. If that's the case, you should take that information into account.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have access to God who is the ultimate source of information and you don't because I am the chosen one. There is no way you can prove or disprove this because God is inaccessible to you but not to me. To have the same information you'd have to be me but you're not because there can be only one chosen one and it's me.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, the ability to make a natural explanation explicitly refutes the supernatural one. By having a much better theory of electricity than ancient greeks, we can easily refute claims that Zeus is responsible for causing lightning strikes from Mount Olympus.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There isn't always a reasonable naturalistic explanation. Atheists have been trying to explain the origin of life forever, but they're still unable to do it because it can't be done. Darwinian evolution doesn't explain how the first self replicating organism was created.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There isn't always a reasonable naturalistic explanation.
        In many cases there is and in those cases we can refute the supernatural explanation, so OP is wrong since his statement was about every case, not some cases.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In many cases there is and in those cases we can refute the supernatural explanation
          Agreed.

          >so OP is wrong since his statement was about every case, not some cases.
          Wrong. My original point was that scientific theories can't disprove supernatural claims because they assume naturalism. That doesn't mean you can't offer a naturalistic explanation. You just can't say that the supernatural claim is wrong because it contradicts some scientific theory.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You just can't say that the supernatural claim is wrong because it contradicts some scientific theory.
            With our knowledge of the natural world, we can definitely conclude that Zeus is not on Mount Olympus firing lightning strikes since those are measurably the result of electricity building up in the atmosphere and Mount Olympus measurably with satellite imagery does not contain some divine castle where all lightning bolts can be traced back to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you can offer a much better explanation than Zeus for lighting. No, you can't disprove Zeus on the grounds that the Zeus theory contradicts some other theory that presupposes the non existence of Zeus. You can disprove the Zeus theory, just not through circular reading.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't presuppose the nonexistence of Zeus, the satellite images and mechanics of electricity prove that Mount Olympus is not full of divine castles and that electricity is generated from environmental conditions rather than some being's wrathful intentions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Science presupposes the non-existence of Zeus through methodological naturalism. Any scientific theory that depends on methodological naturalism cannot disprove a supernatural claim without begging the question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Science presupposes the non-existence of Zeus through methodological naturalism.
            Presupposition had nothing to do with proving that lightning comes from atmospheric electrical discharge or the creation of theories that led to satellites that could scour Mount Olympus which disprove the myth that Zeus lives on Mount Olympus deploying lightning bolts against his enemies, the evidence proved it and the evidence for electricity so vastly outweighs the evidence for Zeus that the theory of electromagnetism has effectively disproved Zeus and Mount Olympus as the source of lightning bolts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already said that you can disprove the Zeus theory by offering a much better explanation. That's not science as defined by many scientists and scientific journals. That's just the normal use of reason. The scientific method as commonly defined includes methodological naturalism. If a theory assumes naturalism due to methodological naturalism, attempting to use it to refute a supernatural claim is circular.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I already said that you can disprove the Zeus theory by offering a much better explanation.
            Then you have found it is not actually impossible to use science to refute supernatural claims and OP is clearly wrong, the presupposition has nothing to do with the final explanation, that fact that it is a much better explanation does and science can very clearly provide much better explanations than supernatural claims in most cases.

            >The scientific method as commonly defined includes methodological naturalism.
            No. the steps of the method are make hypothesis, design experiment, analyze the data, and draw a conclusion and that can certainly be used to demonstrate that the detailed natural explanation is much more accurate than the vague supernatural claims.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you want to use a different definition of science, that's fine. I'm not interested in arguing semantics. The problem is scientific journals do enforce methodological naturalism, and people use studies from these journals to attack supernatural claims. This is circular reasoning.
            Also, certain theories, like Darwinian evolution, rely heavily on methodological naturalism. Darwinian evolution can't actually explain many of the things it's supposed to explain, but scientists stubbornly stick to it due to methodological naturalism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want to use a different definition of science
            Its not different, that is the scientific method, the first step is not make sure to obey naturalism, the first step is to come up with a hypothesis that can be tested (Zeus lives in a castle on Mount Olympus and shoots lightning bolts is a hypothesis that can be tested, but fails all the tests) which is why science regularly hypothesizes supernatural spiritual bullshit like the psyche.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree that naturalism is not well defined, but journals do often enforce what they consider to be naturalism, which is usually just defined as a set of approved theories.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I agree that naturalism is not well defined,
            Then why create an argument that entirely revolves around naturalism and why do it in a provably incorrect way by bringing up a scientific method that makes no mention of naturalism?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's not relevant. My point is that scientific theories make certain arbitrary assumptions, and these assumptions can result in people accidentally making circular arguments. However scientists define naturalism, you can't prove its negation with their theories.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >scientific theories make certain arbitrary assumptions
            Scientific theories are arbitrary assumptions that experiments have been devised to test and data has been produced so that the assumptions could be refined to better match the evidence over time.

            Time has shown that electromagnetism has a much better explanatory power than Zeus for describing how lightning bolts form and discharge.

            >However scientists define naturalism
            I thought you said they presupposed it, how exactly could they presuppose something that didn't even exist until they defined it by applying the scientific method?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Scientific theories are arbitrary assumptions
            Scientific theories are supposed to be supported by evidence, but they ruin it by assuming naturalism without evidence.

            >Time has shown that electromagnetism has a much better explanatory power than Zeus for describing how lightning bolts form and discharge.
            Agreed. My problem is with methodological naturalism, which is enforced by modern journals, not with making inferences to the best explanation in general. People made inferences to the best explanation long before the modern scientific method.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but they ruin it by assuming naturalism without evidence.
            The scientific method doesn't do that though, it only assumes some hypothesis can result in experiments which can result in data which can be evaluated and used to make future predictions.
            Having electromagnetic formulas and well defined natural explanations simply provides much more predictive ability than saying zeus shoots lightning from his castle in mount olympus because miracles.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again I don't care about arguing semantics.

            >which is enforced by modern journals
            No, there are numerous journals dedicated to the psyche and sciences developed around the psyche even though that is clearly unnatural, spiritualistic bullshit derived from past theories about the soul.

            By supernatural, I mean the arbitrary set of theories that many journals reject on the grounds of methodological naturalism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not arguing semantics, I am showing that not a single step of the scientific method is dependent on naturalism and scientific theories can disprove supernatural claims.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't care about semantics
            >Except to show that my entire argument is based on the semantics of journalism instead of science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which is enforced by modern journals
            No, there are numerous journals dedicated to the psyche and sciences developed around the psyche even though that is clearly unnatural, spiritualistic bullshit derived from past theories about the soul.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't presuppose the nonexistence of Zeus, the satellite images and mechanics of electricity prove that Mount Olympus is not full of divine castles and that electricity is generated from environmental conditions rather than some being's wrathful intentions.

            Science presupposes the non-existence of Zeus through methodological naturalism. Any scientific theory that depends on methodological naturalism cannot disprove a supernatural claim without begging the question.

            >Science presupposes the non-existence of Zeus through methodological naturalism.
            Presupposition had nothing to do with proving that lightning comes from atmospheric electrical discharge or the creation of theories that led to satellites that could scour Mount Olympus which disprove the myth that Zeus lives on Mount Olympus deploying lightning bolts against his enemies, the evidence proved it and the evidence for electricity so vastly outweighs the evidence for Zeus that the theory of electromagnetism has effectively disproved Zeus and Mount Olympus as the source of lightning bolts.

            I already said that you can disprove the Zeus theory by offering a much better explanation. That's not science as defined by many scientists and scientific journals. That's just the normal use of reason. The scientific method as commonly defined includes methodological naturalism. If a theory assumes naturalism due to methodological naturalism, attempting to use it to refute a supernatural claim is circular.

            You c**ts are wrong, it's Thor.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sophomoric pseuds that are allergic to irreducible complexity might benefit from reading about sporadic simple groups and irreducible representations.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's impossible to refute something which has no proof
    Babbys first philosophy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's plenty of evidence for at least some supernatural claims, but if atheists understood evidence, they wouldn't be atheists.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I totally have an abundance of evidence which is why I have to make non sequitur attacks on atheists instead of actually presenting a single shred of evidence.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's no reasonable naturalistic explanation that can account for all of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Going into detail would be off topic, but if you look into the proposed naturalistic explanations and the Christian responses to them, you'll see what I'm talking about.
          There's also abiogenesis, and the many problems with Darwinian evolution, which can be easily explained by teleology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of stage magicians have risen from the grave since then and some have even shown how they used natural means to accomplish the trick.

            >you'll see what I'm talking about.
            I will most likely see a bunch of parlor tricks on par with bleeding hindu statues and guru levitation.

            >which can be easily explained by teleology.
            Its even easier to just say its magic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I will most likely see a bunch of parlor tricks on par with bleeding hindu statues and guru levitation.
            I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but good luck trying to make that theory account for all the evidence.
            >Its even easier to just say its magic.
            Biologists are already forced to appeal to final causes, they just don't want to admit that final causes are causes. It's difficult to explain a biological organism without talking about the functions of its parts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You wouldn't need parts with a divine omnipotent mind in control, anything could be anything else at any time because reality is not dependent on logic when everything is a miracle.

            > good luck trying to make that theory account for all the evidence.
            Don't need luck, saying magic did it is just as easy and effective as saying jebus did it for every possible issue that lacks substantial evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You wouldn't need parts with a divine omnipotent mind in control, anything could be anything else at any time because reality is not dependent on logic when everything is a miracle.
            Miracles require the existence of natural laws, otherwise there would be no way for God to verify himself.
            >doesn't look at the evidence
            >complains about the lack of evidence

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Miracles require the existence of natural laws,
            No miracles would require that natural laws are actually very malleable and can be thought away in an instance because they are actually not hard laws at all, but just a result of some divine whim.

            >doesn't look at the evidence
            You didn't present the evidence, you only implied it and said it was too much for you to handle and completely off topic which is why you still lack evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no reasonable naturalistic explanation that can account for all of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
            There's literally none. Theologians are just grasping at obvious straws. But it's hard to acknowledge, just lke the non-existence of Santa. I remember being shattered when it dawned on me 🙁
            So it's ok little guy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's literally none.
            Yes. There is no reasonable naturalistic explanation that can account for all the evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Funny, but why don't you go "off-topic" for a bit and name some of the evidence. We're arguing about standards of evidence after all, so why not study an example. Hint: the fact that some guy said that other people said they saw a person risen from the dead doesn't constitute evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We're arguing about standards of evidence after all, so why not study an example. Hint: the fact that some guy said that other people said they saw a person risen from the dead doesn't constitute evidence.
            The gospels were written by direct witnesses and people who knew direct witnesses. If your explanation for the accounts is that the traditional authorship is false. Here's some evidence for traditional authorship.
            1. Early Christian writers unanimously agreed on traditional authors.
            2. The titles on Bible manuscripts all agree with traditional authorship.
            3. There is a direct line of transmission from John the apostle through Polycarp, who was a martyr, to Irenaeus, who was also a martyr, and Irenaeus affirms traditional authorship.
            4. Mark and Luke were not important figures themselves, so there was no reason for anyone to attribute the gospels to them, but they were both close to the apostles. Mark was Peter's interpreter, and Luke was a companion of Paul.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The gospels were written by direct witnesses and people who knew direct witnesses.
            They were written hundreds of years after the guy died.
            1. The authors of the gospels don't even agree on all the facts, there are numerous contradiction and numerous different claims to appeal to different audiences.
            2. No there are many different translations and claims, they didn't even know about the dead sea scrolls and all its difference from modern scripture until they were found by chance.
            3. There is a direct line from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Un, but that doesn't make all the magical bullshit about divine blood and perfect golf games true.
            4. You are literally using their proximity to him as your justification, so not only is there reason to attribute the gospels to them, you are actively doing it while providing reasons why you think that they are credible documentations.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The authors of the gospels don't even agree on all the facts, there are numerous contradiction and numerous different claims to appeal to different audiences.
            They agree on authorship. The hypothesis that traditional authorship is correct explains the agreement. It's difficult to explain it otherwise.
            >No there are many different translations and claims, they didn't even know about the dead sea scrolls and all its difference from modern scripture until they were found by chance.
            I'm not sure what the dead sea scrolls have to do with gospel authorship. The gospel manuscripts had titles like "according to Matthew." Those titles agree.
            >There is a direct line from Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Un, but that doesn't make all the magical bullshit about divine blood and perfect golf games true.
            Polycarp and Irenaeus proved their sincerity through martyrdom.
            >You are literally using their proximity to him as your justification, so not only is there reason to attribute the gospels to them, you are actively doing it while providing reasons why you think that they are credible documentations.
            I'm using the fact that Luke and Mark had access to direct witnesses to support the accuracy of the gospel accounts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They agree on authorship.
            Why does it matter what the people who already believe agree on, history and historians don't agree and don't even agree that the supposed authors were ever real people.

            >explains the agreement.
            What about the lack of agreement that permeates the gospels?

            >Those titles agree.
            Yea and all the harry potter books agree that harry potter went to hogwarts, so what, that doesn't make it true.

            >Polycarp and Irenaeus proved their sincerity through martyrdom.
            Doesn't prove anything people choose moronic hills to die on all the time, some woman died because she ate her room mate's hot dog, doesn't make it a holy hot dog, just makes her moronic.

            >I'm using the fact that Luke and Mark had access to direct witnesses to support the accuracy of the gospel accounts.
            Which completely contradicts your claim that there would be no reason to attribute the gospels to them since their proximity in the story is your entire reason for saying you think the story is true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does it matter what the people who already believe agree
            What's your alternative explanation? Do you think that writers who lived far away from each other and believed strongly enough to maintain their faith under persecution somehow unanimously agreed to falsely attribute two of the gospels to nobodies? My claim was that you can't give a naturalistic explanation that accounts for the evidence. You still haven't proved me wrong.
            >What about the lack of agreement that permeates the gospels?
            Do you mean the fact that different accounts of the same event will mention different details but agree on the main points like real witness testimony?
            >Yea and all the harry potter books agree that harry potter went to hogwarts, so what, that doesn't make it true.
            No, because Harry Potter is intended to be fiction. I'm responding specifically to your explanation that traditional authorship is false. The fact that the manuscript titles attribute the gospels to the same authors is strong evidence for traditional authorship.
            >Doesn't prove anything people choose moronic hills to die on all the time, some woman died because she ate her room mate's hot dog, doesn't make it a holy hot dog, just makes her moronic.
            Do you seriously think that someone who is willing to be burnt to death for their religion doesn't believe?
            >Which completely contradicts your claim that there would be no reason to attribute the gospels to them since their proximity in the story is your entire reason for saying you think the story is true.
            If traditional authorship was made up, there would be no reason for them not to attribute those gospels to actual apostles.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think there are a lot of people like you who grasp at straws to validate their biases and just latch onto anyone who says anything validating about it in order to build up a narrative of self affirming bullshit over time.

            What is your alternative explanation to the gods of Mount Olympus, why would thousands of greek people falsely attribute some real mountain to a bunch of gods you don't believe in?

            >Do you mean the fact that different accounts of the same event will mention different details
            No I mean that the details they mention often conflict with each other in both minor and larger plot points.

            >The fact that the manuscript titles attribute the gospels to the same authors is strong evidence for traditional authorship.
            No, its evidence that the manuscript was originally titled in a specific way that was preserved over time unlike all the minor details related to the stories that have been discarded by authorities, lost to time, and translated to oblivion.

            >Do you seriously think that someone who is willing to be burnt to death for their religion doesn't believe?
            It doesn't matter what they believe, schizos self harm and kill themselves all the time when their reality doesn't match the expectation of their beliefs.

            >there would be no reason for them not to attribute those gospels to actual apostles.
            Other than the fact that it was widely spread propaganda, so they know copies of the manuscript have made the rounds and there would be evidence of the change and the copies would conflict even more than they already do and be even easier for most people to not trust.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The gospels were written by direct witnesses and people who knew direct witnesses
            Thousands of peasants testified to vampires haunting their villages, we have that in writing, and even official reports on vampire hunting. Why don't you believe in vampires (or do you?)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Religious morons just believe that vampires and aliens are actually just types of demons.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's your explanation for the accounts? My claim is that you can't give me a reasonable naturalistic explanation. Do you think the apostles were mistaken? They claimed to have seen Jesus after the crucifixion as a group, talked to him, touched him, and ate with him. Do you think that they were lying? They were willing to suffer and die in attestation to the resurrection and none of them recanted.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Was Harry Potter lying when he figured out who Voldemort really was?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What's your explanation for the accounts?
            What do you think??? People fabricate bullshit and people are gullible. This should not come as a surprise to you. Priests, shamans, leaders always capitalised on telling tales, or embellishing on the truth. Nothing mind blowing here. No naturalistic explanation is necessary.

            For example, there is tangible evidence that some texts in various versions of the bible was not even copied faithfully, and some chapters were literally added and made up on the spot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What do you think??? People fabricate bullshit and people are gullible. This should not come as a surprise to you. Priests, shamans, leaders always capitalised on telling tales, or embellishing on the truth. Nothing mind blowing here. No naturalistic explanation is necessary.
            The apostles made up a religion that was particularly offensive to both israelites and Romans. Then they preached directly to the same people who'd gotten the founder of the religion killed. Their reward was persecution, and for some of them, death. Does this sound like a reasonable explanation?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, the roman empire created a religion to control the masses and integrated a rebellious independent spirit into it because rebellious independent people are exactly the ones they most needed to control to maintain power.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is no reasonable supernatural explanation either which is why people have had to invent thousands of gods and every religion eventually devolves into endless schisms or just disappears from practice.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no reasonable naturalistic explanation that can account for all of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus
            It's called a fairytale, I don't deny that reality is supernatural as in unexplainable by any method which we can devise, but religions are fairytales and moronic as frick, god is not a bearded man, rather an unimaginably complex mechanism which constructs reality

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    and supernatural claims can't be shown to be true by any means.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They can be shown to be true using evidence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Apparently though, according to OP, evidence is a form of naturalism and doesn't apply to supernatural things, so it can't actually be used to prove supernatural claims because it relies on an assumption of natural cause/effect.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Learn to read.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Learn to have an argument.
            Cause and Effect is the only "naturalism" assumption that OP has been able to argue is necessary for a scientific methodology.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence so unicorns and fairies are real.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares both ways.
    Science refutes what isn't reproducible, not what isn't true.
    Natural/supernatural is an irrelavent distinction; the moment schzios can start to consistently blast fireballs, magic just became science.
    And if you can't consistently reproduce something then it's not worth the time overturning scores of traditional models to make room for a possible one-off phenomena.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science is just the process of observation. If your supernatural events were real, they would be repeatable and people would be able to set up ways to observe the phenomenon. Just like we can with real things. Like giant squids and rogue waves, radiation, and how chemicals interact.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Science is just the process of observation.
      No, it combines both inductive and deductive reasoning with observation and reassessment.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I must reiterate that I am the smartest. It’s a God given grace to the humble.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >science presupposes naturalism
    No it does not, that is a common confusion that breeds dogma by saying that nonmaterial things can never be studied, to which the undogmatic merely asks, "Why not?" Science assumes that what is real is consistently observed.

    Also, materialism is already refuted since NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

    >"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

    If NDEs were hallucinations, hardcore atheists and neuroscientists who had them would maintain that stance. What is found is the complete opposite, and that is why materialism will not be around thousands if not hundreds of years from now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can simulate an NDE with hallucinogens, moron. There are perfectly material explanations for them.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because the supernatural is made-up bullshit.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *