Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[786]

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.

Correct.

Science can say that the Big Bang or life itself did not need a creator in order to come about.

No it can't... Science is limited to the dilemma of everything natural has a cause. It is precisely because of this unknown 'cause'- to find this- does science prosper.

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).

This is a stupid argument (one used by Dawkins also, I might add ). For one 'time-dependent' evolutionary process' is correct.... TIME dependent.... Evolution by definition is change over time... Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension- NO- In other words complexity can exist without any need for evolution as long as the dimension is timeless- What do you think God is?

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

No it can't... Science is limited to the dilemma of everything natural has a cause. It is precisely because of this unknown 'cause'- to find this- does science prosper.

No, science has no such limitations. It's only the prevailing state of knowledge- that there is no evidence for supernatural things at this time- that causes the misconception that science could not possibly include the supernatural in it's considerations.

This is a stupid argument (one used by Dawkins also, I might add ). For one 'time-dependent' evolutionary process' is correct.... TIME dependent.... Evolution by definition is change over time... Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension- NO- In other words complexity can exist without any need for evolution as long as the dimension is timeless- What do you think God is?

In a timeless dimension, it would not be possible to do anything or even to exist. Doing things, creating things, being things, that all happens in time.

 

[786]

No, science has no such limitations. It's only the prevailing state of knowledge- that there is no evidence for supernatural things at this time- that causes the misconception that science could not possibly include the supernatural in it's considerations.

Why are you mixing two separate things up? I said the limitation was everything had a cause, and science tries to discover these causes.

Science can not study supernatural- first of of course there is no evidence for it- but how could you- only thing you can do is say something is unexplained so it may be because of something 'supernatural' but apart from that you can't really 'study' the supernatural even if there were 'proof' for it.

In a timeless dimension, it would not be possible to do anything or even to exist. Doing things, creating things, being things, that all happens in time.

That is assuming our physics for this natural world which is time dependent would still apply to a completely different 'world'- very scientific of you

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

In other words complexity can exist without any need for evolution as long as the dimension is timeless- What do you think God is?

Unprovable, untestable speculation.

That is assuming our physics for this natural world which is time dependent would still apply to a completely different 'world'- very scientific of you

Hardly.
If, as Spidergoat stated, things are "Done or created" then time must be involved. If there were no time then those things must have always existed/ been done.
Without time they cannot "not be done" or "not exist" if at some "point" they are done or exist.
They're either always there or never there, if there's no time.
As you yourself claimed: evolution cannot occur without time. What is "doing things" or creating things" but a form of progress, like evolution?

 

[spidergoat]

Incorrect. For example, radioactive decay is an uncaused event.

Science can not study supernatural- first of of course there is no evidence for it- but how could you- only thing you can do is say something is unexplained so it may be because of something 'supernatural' but apart from that you can't really 'study' the supernatural even if there were 'proof' for it.

There is no evidence for it, but it certainly can study it. The evidence would be something for which there is no other plausible naturalistic explantion. Many such things would fit the bill, but they would of course have to be checked out with rigorous methodology. Science studies so-called supernatural phenomenon right now! It studies prayer, telepathy, telekenesis, ect...

That is assuming our physics for this natural world which is time dependent would still apply to a completely different 'world'- very scientific of you

Well, that's the sort of thing that mystics can contribute. It's just speculation at this point, but only quantum things seem to move forwards and backwards in time. To say something exists outside of time is no explanation at all for the macrocosmic events you are trying to explain.

 

[parmalee]

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.

what exactly do you mean by this? what ideas? mysticism is experiential and does not really posit views or ideas--and no mystic could continuously abide in a state of wu-wei/wu-nien; for one thing, that would be a sort of attachment--for another, one couldn't eat, shit, sleep, etc. [of course, i suppose some sadhus and extreme ascetic sorts might aspire to this--but that aspiration is a problem.]

 

[spidergoat]

OK then, what's a mystic?

 

[786]

If, as Spidergoat stated, things are "Done or created" then time must be involved. If there were no time then those things must have always existed/ been done.
Without time they cannot "not be done" or "not exist" if at some "point" they are done or exist.

Your argument follows from the same logic that action depends upon time- which is true in nature.... But if something agrees with this rule it would be natural no? I thought we were talking about the supernatural.

Here is a clear cut example of putting natural limitation on something supernatural because your 'scientific' minds have pre-conceived notion that everything complies to your natural laws- that is time dependency. The assumption that everything is natural is unfalsifiable and therefore can not be labeled truth (right spidergoat?)

As you yourself claimed: evolution cannot occur without time. What is "doing things" or creating things" but a form of progress, like evolution?

Destroying is also an action with time and does not necessarily have anything to do with progress. Progressive destruction? :shrug:

Also an entity which has all the time 'past, present, and future' in a singularity (perse) can change things within that time- of course the change is occurring within the time so that is evolution but the entity itself does not change- In other words evolution is only occuring here, not there. Can God change things without changing himself- sure if he is supernatural that is

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Incorrect. For example, radioactive decay is an uncaused event.


There is no evidence for it, but it certainly can study it. The evidence would be something for which there is no other plausible naturalistic explantion. Many such things would fit the bill, but they would of course have to be checked out with rigorous methodology. Science studies so-called supernatural phenomenon right now! It studies prayer, telepathy, telekenesis, ect...

Cough.... Eh. Hmm... so you call studying the effect of something 'supernatural' a study of the supernatural itself... I believe I was referring to 'study' as in we know the mechanism of the supernatural not simply its effect...

We knew how to breed way before genetics was discovered- the 'study' was to find 'how' it is that breeding works... So what you are saying is what I already said... You can't really 'study' the mechanism of the supernatural, you are limited to studying the effects of it- and I think that is primarily why there can never be 'scientific proof' for something supernatural.

Well, that's the sort of thing that mystics can contribute. It's just speculation at this point, but only quantum things seem to move forwards and backwards in time. To say something exists outside of time is no explanation at all for the macrocosmic events you are trying to explain.

Hmm... if your assumption is something is 'supernatural' then to assume that it is bound by the 'natural' is in effect a contradiction in assumptions.

Peace be unto you

 

[parmalee]

OK then, what's a mystic?

can't respond in detail now, as i've been awake for 40-odd hours. so:

essentially, a mystic is an irrational unthinking idiot--but, as you've probably realized, i do not intend this is the same way as if i were to describe, uh, well, say the average american. (i should probably delete that bit, but what the hell do i care?)

anyhow, details after sleep.

 

[James R]

If they cannot be falsified, then no label of truth can be applied to them.

Nonsense. Have you ever heard of Godel's theorems? Even in mathematics there are true statements that cannot be proved.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your argument follows from the same logic that action depends upon time- which is true in nature.... But if something agrees with this rule it would be natural no? I thought we were talking about the supernatural.
Here is a clear cut example of putting natural limitation on something supernatural because your 'scientific' minds have pre-conceived notion that everything complies to your natural laws- that is time dependency. The assumption that everything is natural is unfalsifiable and therefore can not be labeled truth (right spidergoat?)

Wow you really have missed the point.
Change require time. Otherwise everything remains static. Change is a consequence of time. Without time there is no alteration. Alteration (of any kind) implies THEN is was like that, NOW it's like this.

Destroying is also an action with time and does not necessarily have anything to do with progress. Progressive destruction? :shrug:

Also wrong: destruction is a progression. (Maybe you're taking "progress" to mean "improving". It doesn't).

Also an entity which has all the time 'past, present, and future' in a singularity (perse) can change things within that time- of course the change is occurring within the time so that is evolution but the entity itself does not change- In other words evolution is only occuring here, not there. Can God change things without changing himself- sure if he is supernatural that is

Oh fail again. That wasn't the contention.
Your own words - "Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension" specifies in the "timeless dimension", not affecting us from that dimension.

 

[Dredd]

Here is an example of how mystics and scientists can work together:

The nation of Canada, traditionally an environmentally friendly nation, has suffered a government mental breakdown such that the Canadian government is working feverishly against Kyoto and Copenhagen.

Mystics could convey to their congregations and followers the knowledge which the scientists have provided about why it is a good idea to take care of the environment.

They could work together to change the minds of the Canadian government by co-educating the public to the dangers.

Ok? :shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

So your example of science and mysticism working together is actually mysticism saying "Yes science you're right, and we've contributed nothing".

 

[(Q)]

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.

Uncreated? What is that supposed to mean? You appear to be making this stuff up as you go along. The universe simply came about on its own, there is plenty of evidence to support this "falsifiable" theory.

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.

Yes, you are making this stuff up, it makes no sense whatsoever. At least if something "weird is going on" and it's cause is unknown, there is far more evidence of "something" than there is of your god. Your god has nothing to offer in the form of evidence.

And again, you should really take up residence with a dictionary some day and learn a few definitions.

 

[spidergoat]

Cough.... Eh. Hmm... so you call studying the effect of something 'supernatural' a study of the supernatural itself... I believe I was referring to 'study' as in we know the mechanism of the supernatural not simply its effect...

We knew how to breed way before genetics was discovered- the 'study' was to find 'how' it is that breeding works... So what you are saying is what I already said... You can't really 'study' the mechanism of the supernatural, you are limited to studying the effects of it- and I think that is primarily why there can never be 'scientific proof' for something supernatural.




Hmm... if your assumption is something is 'supernatural' then to assume that it is bound by the 'natural' is in effect a contradiction in assumptions.

Peace be unto you

So you admit there are no observable effects from anything supernatural. Even a fool would have to admit that something which has no effects cannot be said to exist at all.

 

[spidergoat]

Nonsense. Have you ever heard of Godel's theorems? Even in mathematics there are true statements that cannot be proved.

Yet.

 

[786]

Uncreated? What is that supposed to mean? You appear to be making this stuff up as you go along. The universe simply came about on its own, there is plenty of evidence to support this "falsifiable" theory.

I didn't expect you to understand.... The null hypothesis of the universe coming about 'on its own' is that it 'didn't'- The only way to know it 'didn't' is to figure out what did cause it- there is no way of knowing this- thus the null can never be tested and therefore the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable.... don't respond because you don't get it.

Yes, you are making this stuff up, it makes no sense whatsoever. At least if something "weird is going on" and it's cause is unknown, there is far more evidence of "something" than there is of your god. Your god has nothing to offer in the form of evidence.

Hehe... my argument has nothing in specific with god... simply something 'supernatural'- it doesn't make sense to you because you've closed your brain shut thanks to your cult :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

So you admit there are no observable effects from anything supernatural. Even a fool would have to admit that something which has no effects cannot be said to exist at all.

Cough.. Eh.... Hmm....

I believe I said "You can't really 'study' the mechanism of the supernatural, you are limited to studying the effects of it"

Only a fool would believe that 'observable effect' is the only reality..... Perhaps the complete nature is an effect of the supernatural and science is basically the study of that effect- can you show anything about the supernatural mechanism that lead to this- no- because you're part of the effect itself.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Yet.

James R got it right

Peace be unto you