Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[786]

If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't valid and can't be taken seriously as a hypothesis. As an alleged student of biology, you should know that.

The opposite is also not falsifiable

Then, by your own logic, you just demonstrated god isn't necessary. Well done.

No... when did you understand logic in the first place

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

You're the only one making the claim 'had to be'.... I only said 'creation' itself is not falsifiable... if you're going to change my statement into something more absolute like 'had to be' then that is your choice- and irrelevant in terms of what I said.

Oh dear you still fail to follow.

Originally Posted by 786
Actually the idea that it was 'not created' is also not falsifiable...

Science could show that creation is not necessary, but theists could still make the counter claim that I noted above.
Get it?

So science actually can never show that 'god isn't necessary'-

Really?
No, not really.

 

[786]

Neither has the idea of invisible, pink, fire-breathing dragons been falsified. What's your point?

Spidergoat is the one who brought up the question of 'falsifiable' not me... that was supposed argument against creation.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Oh dear you still fail to follow.

Now you're skipping around.

Science could show that creation is not necessary, but theists could still make the counter claim that I noted above.
Get it?

Science never has shown creation is unnecessary. Because the underlying process that leads to these mechanism to work is always unknown. I don't expect you to 'get it'.

Really?
No, not really.

Yes really...

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now you're skipping around.

Hardly, but if you can't see the line of reasoning there's no point me continuing.

Science never has shown creation is unnecessary.

Hence the word "could".

Because the underlying process that leads to these mechanism to work is always unknown. I don't expect you to 'get it'.

Hence the continuing pursuit of physics.
We find underlying processes all the time.

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat is the one who brought up the question of 'falsifiable' not me... that was supposed argument against creation.

Peace be unto you

Mystics should at least be aware of the limits of their ideas. If they aren't falsifiable, then they aren't very useful except to talk about.

 

[786]

Hardly, but if you can't see the line of reasoning there's no point me continuing.

Okay maybe its too advanced for me :shrug:

Hence the word "could".

Okay, at least you agree that it "has"n't.

Hence the continuing pursuit of physics.
We find underlying processes all the time.

Great.... Suppose it turns out all of the universal processes are in a 'cycle'- then the obvious question will be how did the cycle start- we're going to end up with chicken or the egg type dilemma in the end- even if we did find out all the processes. So even then creation 'could' not be deemed 'unnecessary'. But that is only my opinion... I'll be long dead before we are at this stage.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Mystics should at least be aware of the limits of their ideas. If they aren't falsifiable, then they aren't very useful except to talk about.

And things that are unfalsifiable in science won't be deemed 'mystics'- I see

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

Mystics should at least be aware of the limits of their ideas. If they aren't falsifiable, then they aren't very useful except to talk about.

Let's say person A suggests to person B certain truths. These truths cannot, now at least, be falsified. Nevertheless upon hearing these truths, person B feels more optimistic - or some other positive quality. Have we not now demonstrated 'usefulness'? Despite the lack of falsifiability. Many non-religious concepts function the same way.

 

[spidergoat]

If they cannot be falsified, then no label of truth can be applied to them. I'm talking about even a theoretical falsification, not something that might be able to be falsified at some later date if we had the technology.

 

[(Q)]

Spidergoat is the one who brought up the question of 'falsifiable' not me... that was supposed argument against creation.

It doesn't matter, you clearly don't understand the concept of falsifiability. If you say creation can't be falsified, it is then utterly useless as a concept.

 

[786]

It doesn't matter, you clearly don't understand the concept of falsifiability. If you say creation can't be falsified, it is then utterly useless as a concept.

Same goes for the opposite side. Secondly the place you quoted I messed up the word should have been 'falsified' not 'falsifiable' but I guess latter is also true.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

If they cannot be falsified, then no label of truth can be applied to them. I'm talking about even a theoretical falsification, not something that might be able to be falsified at some later date if we had the technology.

So science can not be labeled truth... I always knew this..

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Same goes for the opposite side.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? What opposite?

 

[786]

What exactly is that supposed to mean? What opposite?

The universe is 'uncreated' - this can't be falsified because for this to be falsifiable you need to know if it is 'created' or not which is unfalsifiable... So both positions are unfalsifiable.

Also science only studies the 'natural'- but the problem is you guys need 'scientific proof' for everything in other words you're saying everything is happening due to some 'natural' cause. 'Natural'- this is also unfalsifiable - if something weird is going on 'scientists' can always say, its happening via unknown mechanism just as you blame theists to do it for their God like Dywyddyr was saying.

Peace be unto you

 

[Gustav]

.... its happening via unknown mechanism just as you blame theists to do it for their God like Dywyddyr was saying.

Peace be unto you

strange how you place the two on the same footing
one says..."we do not know", the other... "we know"

 

[786]

strange how you place the two on the same footing
one says..."we do not know", the other... "we know"

The supposition is 'we know' its natural. Because otherwise where is the proof? You're never going to get 'proof' so it isn't there..


The reason they are on equal footing is because the assumptions behind 'natural' and 'random' make it so.... Logically they are not on the same footing, but the moment you try to understand science then they are on the same footing, this was the point of 'God of Science' thread.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

So science can not be labeled truth... I always knew this..

Peace be unto you

I see you have adopted Hay_you's method of debate.

 

[786]

I see you have adopted Hay_you's method of debate.

Well I've been arguing that some aspects of science are unfalsifiable, and then you say that such thing can not be labeled truth... It is only a logical conclusion.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

The notion that the universe was created or uncreated is not falsifiable, and thus not scientific. Science cannot say that the universe was definitely not created by a deity.

Science can say that the Big Bang or life itself did not need a creator in order to come about. Occam's razor comes into play here, since a complex creator at the beginning of time is much more unlikely than not, given that the complexity we observe came about as the result of a time-dependent evolutionary process (nothing complex was possible until the universe cooled).

The supernatural is always a possibility when there is no other plausible naturalistic explanation (proven or not). I don't say that evidence for a deity or other supernatural thing (or their necessity as a means of explanation) will never be discovered, only that up to this point, it has not.

The state of science as it is today does not support or require the intervention of a deity.

I think the function of mystical thinking is to exercise and challenge science in order to assist in it's growth and discovery.