All science is materialistic

[Jehanne]

Well, then, let's say that after all of this a god, super being, etc., showed-up glowing with white rage and began torturing any doubting physicalists from the inside out until they, willingly or not, changed their minds and publicly recanted physicalism?

The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that in science it is impossible to experimentally test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses): the thesis says that unambiguous scientific falsifications are impossible. In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle of hypotheses. Although a bundle of hypotheses (i.e. a hypothesis and its background assumptions) as a whole can be tested against the empirical world and be falsified if it fails the test, the Duhem–Quine thesis says it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle, a viewpoint called confirmation holism.

Wikipedia || Duhem-Quine thesis

Yeah, sure, we may all be brains in vats. However, if a super being showed-up and began torturing you until you either denied the Duhem–Quine thesis, executing you if you did not, the Duhem–Quine thesis would cease to be discussed in academic circles.

[Hi600]

All science is materialistic
matter is primary, idea and god are secondary
science must dominate
do you agree

By 'dominate' do you mean science may not be questioned?

You haven’t listened to Anthony Fauci? He is the science, and anybody who questions him needs to be jailed.

[GrandizerII]

It would certainly put physicalism into doubt here, though there will still be explanations that save physicalism in this case. For example, super advanced aliens that are able to trick our eyes using super advanced technology far beyond our comprehension.

Well, then, let's say that after all of this a god, super being, etc., showed-up glowing with white rage and began torturing any doubting physicalists from the inside out until they, willingly or not, changed their minds and publicly recanted physicalism?

Putting aside the fear factor, someone who's strongly physicalist might still say it must be aliens using super advanced technology to manipulate us, because to them that will always be more plausible than truly supernatural (non-physical) beings. I think for many, the core of their worldview assumes things like physicalism and they use that to judge whether some hypothesis/theory/view is falsifiable or not (but not physicalism).

[Jehanne]

Well, then, let's say that after all of this a god, super being, etc., showed-up glowing with white rage and began torturing any doubting physicalists from the inside out until they, willingly or not, changed their minds and publicly recanted physicalism?

Putting aside the fear factor, someone who's strongly physicalist might still say it must be aliens using super advanced technology to manipulate us, because to them that will always be more plausible than truly supernatural (non-physical) beings. I think for many, the core of their worldview assumes things like physicalism and they use that to judge whether some hypothesis/theory/view is falsifiable or not (but not physicalism).

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism. Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

This will be my last post for this thread; I really have nothing more to say on this subject. Besides, the House GOP thread is way too much fun!!

[Fake Messiah]

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism. Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

Yeah, Carl Sagan said the same thing, saying that if the stars in the night sky suddenly rearranged in geometric patterns would be strong evidence for god.

[Anomalocaris]

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

Yeah, Carl Sagan said the same thing, saying that if the stars in the night sky suddenly rearranged in geometric patterns would be strong evidence for god.

I think he was speaking for dramatic effect, and perhaps consciously using a rhetorical sleight of hand by taking advantage of the multiple vague meanings of the term god.

I see no reason whatsoever why occurance of any such an event as he describes would in anyway constitute even the vaguest suggestion of any “god” as the term might be understood by those who most fervent wish to see a god.

Those who fervently wish to see intelligent design don’t really wish to see intelligent design per se.   What they wish for is a some entity that would take the trouble to make the wisher feel special.   Even if stars rearranges themselves into geometric pattern can have no explanation other than powerful intelligence goofing around,  it in no way suggest such an intelligence are remotely related to the thing sincere  theists or “intelligent design” advocates really wish to get out of “creation” or “intelligent design”.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By 'dominate' do you mean science may not be questioned?

You haven’t listened to Anthony Fauci? He is the science, and anybody who questions him needs to be jailed.

You would imprison people for questioning a scientist? What are you, stupid or something?

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Putting aside the fear factor, someone who's strongly physicalist might still say it must be aliens using super advanced technology to manipulate us, because to them that will always be more plausible than truly supernatural (non-physical) beings. I think for many, the core of their worldview assumes things like physicalism and they use that to judge whether some hypothesis/theory/view is falsifiable or not (but not physicalism).

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

This will be my last post for this thread; I really have nothing more to say on this subject.  Besides, the House GOP thread is way too much fun!!

Fair enough, though would've liked to know when do you determine when conservation laws are no longer the case. I probably need to read back a bit to see what else you were saying.

[GrandizerII]

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

Yeah, Carl Sagan said the same thing, saying that if the stars in the night sky suddenly rearranged in geometric patterns would be strong evidence for god.

For me, at the very least, strong evidence for God would have to be cumulative. If this is all the fascinating stuff I end up seeing, then it could still be once again aliens playing tricks on us. Hell, probably human tricksters could do just that. Why, in this scenario, is someone playing visual tricks on us with the sky less likely than some actual supernatural being doing actual supernatural stuff with the stars?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, Carl Sagan said the same thing, saying that if the stars in the night sky suddenly rearranged in geometric patterns would be strong evidence for god.

For me, at the very least, strong evidence for God would have to be cumulative. If this is all the fascinating stuff I end up seeing, then it could still be once again aliens playing tricks on us. Hell, probably human tricksters could do just that. Why, in this scenario, is someone playing visual tricks on us with the sky less likely than some actual supernatural being doing actual supernatural stuff with the stars?

Well put. There’s a difference between one magician pulling one rabbit out of one hat and millions of rabbits spontaneously materializing in millions of hats.

Boru