Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post.  When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry.  But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant.  I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

Well, I don't agree with you there, or your characterization of the value of your prior citation. But let's take a different tack to see if we can add light on the subject. How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

(As a parenthetical, I'll note that your example of Newtonian gravity says nothing about the underlying metaphysics of gravity. Did they err, and simply omit the necessary metaphysical qualifications?)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

Well, I don't agree with you there, or your characterization of the value of your prior citation.  But let's take a different tack to see if we can add light on the subject.  How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

(As a parenthetical, I'll note that your example of Newtonian gravity says nothing about the underlying metaphysics of gravity.  Did they err, and simply omit the necessary metaphysical qualifications?)

It's fine if you want to look at it metaphysically and I'm not knocking you for doing so.  I don't agree with everybody, and likewise I don't expect everybody to agree with me.  

If you can provide information from some accredited university or scientific organization that both adheres to and explains your belief on gravity, then I'll be more than happy to considerate it.  If not, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation here, or we'll just keep going round-n-round about natural law vs metaphysics, and to me that just ends up being unproductive

[Angrboda]

Well, I don't agree with you there, or your characterization of the value of your prior citation.  But let's take a different tack to see if we can add light on the subject.  How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

(As a parenthetical, I'll note that your example of Newtonian gravity says nothing about the underlying metaphysics of gravity.  Did they err, and simply omit the necessary metaphysical qualifications?)

It's fine if you want to look at it metaphysically and I'm not knocking you for doing so.  I don't agree with everybody, and likewise I don't expect everybody to agree with me.  

If you can provide information from some accredited university or scientific organization that both adheres to and explains your belief on gravity, then I'll be more than happy to considerate it.  If not, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation here, or we'll just keep going round-n-round about natural law vs metaphysics, and to me that just ends up being unproductive

You didn't answer the question. How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

[polymath257]

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post.  When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry.  But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant.  I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

I think Newton's "Law" is a very good example of what we are talking about.

Newton originally considered his force law, but did not publish it, because he could not figure out the mathematics involved in attraction between two spherical bodies. He tested his ideas by comparing with what was known about the motions of the moon and the planets.

Later, it was found that the Newtonian predictions for the orbit of Uranus didn't agree with the observations. To rectify this, a new planet was proposed and Newton's laws were used to predict where to observe that planet. From this, the planet Neptune was discovered.

Later still, it was found that the Newtonian predictions for the orbit of Mercury didn't agree with the observations. To rectify this, a new planet was proposed (and even given a name---Vulcan). However, no such planet was ever discovered. Instead, Einstein modified Newtonian physics and produced a *new* description of gravity: General Relativity. When this new description was applied to the orbit of Mercury, the predictions and observations agreed.

The point is that what determines a natural law is observation and observed behavior. That's it. Newton's laws are not sacred revelations, nor are Einstein's. They are subject to modification based on new observations and new tests. No law if *ever* completely verified: there is always the possibility that new observations another decimal place out will require modification of our ideas.

The same is true for *all* natural laws: they are all descriptive and subject to modification based on new information.

If, for example, a vampire was discovered that could turn into a bat, then a great deal of physics would immediately be brought into question. because of that, the confidence in the evidence for such a transformation would have to be quite good. But if it were established, the science would have to change.

There is nothing *inherent* in the properties of vampires that says that the scientific method cannot be used to determine their properties or behavior.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It's fine if you want to look at it metaphysically and I'm not knocking you for doing so.  I don't agree with everybody, and likewise I don't expect everybody to agree with me.  

If you can provide information from some accredited university or scientific organization that both adheres to and explains your belief on gravity, then I'll be more than happy to considerate it.  If not, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation here, or we'll just keep going round-n-round about natural law vs metaphysics, and to me that just ends up being unproductive

You didn't answer the question.  How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

Not every question needs to be answered.  As I said, I'm not going round-n-round over gravity vs vampires.  If you want to believe in scientific vampire monsters, then more power to you.

[Angrboda]

You didn't answer the question.  How would you go about proving that gravity has a natural rather than a supernatural cause?

Not every question needs to be answered.  As I said, I'm not going round-n-round over gravity vs vampires.  If you want to believe in scientific vampire monsters, then more power to you.

No, not every question needs to be answered, but if you are making a positive case for something and fail to answer relevant questions, it puts the credibility of your claims into severe doubt. I take it, then, you are choosing to abandon your prior claims about the scientific method?

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me. We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion. His name was Roadrunner79. The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part. That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar. Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

[LastPoet]

lol, kid does not understand.

[LastPoet]

Not you Jor lol (memo to use reply more often)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not every question needs to be answered.  As I said, I'm not going round-n-round over gravity vs vampires.  If you want to believe in scientific vampire monsters, then more power to you.

No, not every question needs to be answered, but if you are making a positive case for something and fail to answer relevant questions, it puts the credibility of your claims into severe doubt.  I take it, then, you are choosing to abandon your prior claims about the scientific method?

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me.  We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion.  His name was Roadrunner79.  The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part.  That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar.  Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

Not at all.  I gave you an option for continuing the conversation, and you still have that option. Present documentation from an accredited university or scientific institution that adheres to your belief and explains what you think is applicable to gravity. I've provided information from multiple sources, and to this point it's just you suggesting I should discount Newton.  I'm happy to have friendly conversations, but it's important for information sharing to be reciprocal. If not it's just round-n-round and I'm not interested.  Your personal doubt is inconsequential to me. 

I don't know who "Roadrunner79" is and I don't care.  It has literally nothing to do with this unless he shows up and starts talking about vampires, gravity, supernatural claims, metaphysics, or the scientific method.  You past or present relationship with him is additionally inconsequential to me.

If you don't want to present external information, then feel free not to, but at that point I'm exiting the conversation due to disinterest in continuing it.  Provide information, and there ya have it.  I can evaluate it and share my thoughts, and maybe we'll even agree on some things so that we can move forward.

[GrandizerII]

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me.  We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion.  His name was Roadrunner79.  The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part.  That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar.  Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

The manner described is indeed eerily similar to RR's.