Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Crossless2.0]

Supernatural and unnatural are not the same thing. Supernatural is outside of the natural world (our universe).

In that case you are redefining what universe means because the universe is everything that is. Therefore there can by your definition not be a supernatural.

Nope. It's really quite easy to look up these terms. You should try it. 


Your last paragraph is utter nonsense and a product of your imagination. You clearly do not even understand basic terms all throughout this thread.

Coming out with dictionary definitions ignores the fact that I am correct in that all sciences get applied. Sure yes some fields of science have more real world applications than others, but the whole reason for any science is that it is relevant and useful to the real world, otherwise it's philosophy.

What you are demonstrating is your binary religious thinking in saying that some sciences are applied and others are not.

Tell me of a scientific field that is not applied. As far as I can tell the only one anyone could possibly be able to suggest (for the moment) is astrobiology.

---

And of course you double down on your incorrect usage of these terms.

But hey, fuck me, right? What would a scientist know about science? Fucking crazy /s

Same here. A professional scientist and R&D engineer being told that I don't understand how these terms actually get used.

But if you had your way, he couldn't assert the supernatural (based, presumably, on his inferential bunk).

[TheBeardedDude]

Why would anyone ever infer a supernatural cause rather than an as-yet unknown natural cause for a natural event?

Because their knowledge about natural causes (known and verified causes) is severely limited.

---

In that case you are redefining what universe means because the universe is everything that is. Therefore there can by your definition not be a supernatural.



Coming out with dictionary definitions ignores the fact that I am correct in that all sciences get applied. Sure yes some fields of science have more real world applications than others, but the whole reason for any science is that it is relevant and useful to the real world, otherwise it's philosophy.

What you are demonstrating is your binary religious thinking in saying that some sciences are applied and others are not.

Tell me of a scientific field that is not applied. As far as I can tell the only one anyone could possibly be able to suggest (for the moment) is astrobiology.

---

Same here. A professional scientist and R&D engineer being told that I don't understand how these terms actually get used.

But if you had your way, he couldn't assert the supernatural (based, presumably, on his inferential bunk).

He couldn't LOGICALLY assert the supernatural. No one can stop him from asserting it anyways though.

[SteveII]

For three paragraphs you are setting up your  equivocations for 'universe' and 'reality'. You need that because you want the supernatural later in your thesis to come under the purview of science. However, you have a problem from the start. If the supernatural exists, it does so independently of the universe and has, by all understanding of it, existed prior to the universe. If the supernatural is part of reality but predated the universe, then it follows that the universe and reality are very different things. 

 
Supernatural and unnatural are not the same thing. Supernatural is outside of the natural world (our universe). Unnatural just mean something did not happen naturally. I can make an unnatural tree by grafting two together. I cannot in any way effect a supernatural cause. While something that is supernatural would be unnatural, it does not work that something that is unnatural is supernatural (it may or may not be). However there is a nuance you are missing. When we discuss the supernatural, we are talking about supernatural causes that have effects in the natural world. 

"Unverified" is not the same thing as "indistinguishable from the human imagination/fiction". You still have the effect which is real in the natural world. You still have science to rule out natural causes. 


1. Two problems with that sentence. a) the evidence would be the fact that a natural cause was not a factor and the actual presence of the effect and b) it is incorrect to say "lack sufficient evidence to suggest that they are possible". All you have warrant for is that they are not naturally possible. To just say 'not possible' is question begging. 
2. You have defined 'reality' to be only the natural world. If the supernatural exists, it is part of reality. It is question begging to define reality without the supernatural and then say it's impossible because it is not part of reality. The rest of your point hinges on this so fails because it is circular. 


3. That is simply not true. A supernatural explanation can only be detected by the effect it leaves on the natural world. So, it is the effect that you would be examining and inferring a supernatural cause. 
4. That is not even close. Inferring a supernatural explanation will never ever get you to redefining it as a natural explanation. 
5. Again, to be accurate, science tells us there are no naturalistic explanations. It cannot tell us there are no other explanations. 
6. You are getting lost with the "indistinguishable from our imagination" stuff. None of your arguments gets you anywhere near that. 
7. No again. You are just redefining terms. Supernatural will never be part of any natural explanation. They are, by definition, opposites. 


Actually, your example of telepathy is not supernatural. To be supernatural, you would have to have a cause from outside our universe.

---

Nope. It's really quite easy to look up these terms. You should try it. 


Your last paragraph is utter nonsense and a product of your imagination. You clearly do not even understand basic terms all throughout this thread.

And of course you double down on your incorrect usage of these terms.

But hey, fuck me, right? What would a scientist know about science? Fucking crazy /s

I gave reasons for EVERY SINGLE POINT I made. That's how a discussion works. You suck at it and I regret taking the time. You are in over your head with reasoning. Stick to whatever "science" you do and leave the philosophy to someone who gets it--knowing one CLEARY does not help with the other.

[Silver]

I gave reasons for EVERY SINGLE POINT I made. That's how a discussion works. You suck at it and I regret taking the time. You are in over your head with reasoning. Stick to whatever "science" you do and leave the philosophy to someone who gets it--knowing one CLEARY does not help with the other.

A reason is not necessarily reasonable; it can just be an illogical apologetic.

[TheBeardedDude]

And of course you double down on your incorrect usage of these terms.

But hey, fuck me, right? What would a scientist know about science? Fucking crazy /s

I gave reasons for EVERY SINGLE POINT I made. That's how a discussion works. You suck at it and I regret taking the time. You are in over your head with reasoning. Stick to whatever "science" you do and leave the philosophy to someone who gets it--knowing one CLEARY does not help with the other.

You don't understand, you're objectively wrong. It doesn't matter how you've tried to rationalize it so as to make your worldview feel correct. The fact of the matter is that the terms "nature" and "natural" as used by science and in the underlying philosophy of science, is incompatible with your usage of the words along with related terms like "supernatural" "universe" "reality", etc

Between you and I, I do believe I'd be more the authority on this than you

[KevinM1]

Steve, you suck at philosophy, too. If you didn't, you wouldn't keep repeating your failed argument that because people believe in something, it lends truth to that belief.

Maybe you're the one who should take a break?

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you're good at philosophy because you think that you don't have to apply it. You just end up with arguments that mean nothing.

[TheBeardedDude]

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you're good at philosophy because you think that you don't have to apply it. You just end up with arguments that mean nothing.

Precisely!

We can argue the philosophy underlying the Harry Potter universe (from the perspective of within the Harry Potter universe). We can deduce and infer all sorts of things philosophically about a fictitious world, but that doesn't mean any of it is verifiable or demonstrable or real in any literal sense.

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that the thread has become about quibbling over definitions, rather than the concepts behind them. I don't disagree with defining ones terms, it is useful in discussion to be addressing correctly the opposition. We have different understandings of the way in which words are used, as well as the context in which they are used, can take on a different sense (sometimes not found in a dictionary). For instance, one might get the wrong idea, if they simply look up and pick a definition for the word's natural and science, and apply it to the phrase natural science (or died of natural causes).

Now I looked up the word "natural" in the Websters dictionary. There are a lot of definitions there (much more so than the one used above). And as is the nature of words, some uses may be quite divergent although understandably related, and some senses (in context of the surrounding words or the phrase used) may not even be in the dictionary or directly apply. It appears to me, where the conflict arises (and the time to quibble) is if reasoning from one sense is being wrongly applied to another sense. This is a fallacy (equivocation) and even then it can be discussed why the reasoning doesn't apply to the definition or manner in which the word is being used. Otherwise, it seems that the main area of dispute, is to both be discussing the same thing.

[Little Rik]

Let us see your evidence that the supernatural is not natural so we know that you are not talking bull. 

So you're asking someone for evidence that something that by definition does not exist is not something else that does exist.

You need to learn what falsifiable means.

Wrong once again Mat.  

1) I am not the one who claimed that the supernatural is BS.
That means that I should NOT be asked for the contrary.
You got a big problem Mat (among all other problems of course)
You always try to reverse or shifts the burden of proof on other people.

That is not an honest way to proceed Mat.
That is 100% dishonesty.

Let us start from the beginning.
Let us start asking for evidence at the guy who said that the supernatural is BS.

2) Now let us talk about what is or is not falsifiable.

Here again you make a claim that the supernatural doesn't exist on the ground that it can not be testable (falsifiable argument)
Give evidence that the supernatural is not testable.

Possibly before Christmas.  

---

Well, well, well.
Here we got the expert in what is natural.

Let us see your evidence that the supernatural is not natural so we know that you are not talking bull. 

I know this is a waste of keyboard ink, but can you show some evidence that the supernatural actually exists?

Glad to see that you don't come up with the FALSIFIABLE BS story as Mat did.
I would be even more glad if you would have admitted that there is no evidence that the supernatural can not be testable because it can.

How?
By developing the awareness of who we are which is something that doesn't interest a bit materialists or atheists and also if the supernatural would be real then the whole atheist idea would collapse.
These are the reason why atheists deny the existence of the supernatural.