Science!

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Science has as much of value to say about the metaphysical as ancient religious text have to say about the physical world and the diversity of life

I can neither doubt or affirm what you say is true.
By science do you mean parapsychology?

Originally posted by EAPOE
There is interesting "scientific" research progressing currently on the question. . . "We have feelings of spirituality, why do we have them?"

I will say for clarity, these studies in no way relate to or ask the question "Does god exist?".

On the subject of the first question, neurological study and direct observation of human neural networks, is leadin ...[text shortened]... time lag will shorten as society progresses through this century. I am not optimistic. . .

But if spirit is not matter how can science measure it?

Originally posted by amannion
If you refer to some sort of supernatural entity, then no, science can't measure or detect that. But here's where we get back to our previous discussion about what would constitute a spirit or soul.
I would argue that what you call a spirit or soul is simply your own mind using that notion as an explanation for some things. Can science examine this? Sure. ...[text shortened]... ly argue that what you call a spirit or soul is an actual thing. Can science examine this? No.

Thanks, you answered my question.
So if I believed that spirit is a thing it could not be proved scientifically whether there is spirit or not?
Then if science cannot prove yea or nay then what can? Surely there must be some way to know. There must be some irrefutable argument.
It's frustrating to think that I know but someone else thinks I'm imagining it, and I can't prove it!
This is ridiculous!

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Prove that God doesn't exist.

Prove that God exists? I can't even prove to myself that I exist. What a second, did'nt Nietze go mad trying to talk himself out of his own existence? What have you people done to me!!!!!

Originally posted by josephw
Thanks, you answered my question.
So if I believed that spirit is a thing it could not be proved scientifically whether there is spirit or not?
Then if science cannot prove yea or nay then what can? Surely there must be some way to know. There must be some irrefutable argument.
It's frustrating to think that I know but someone else thinks I'm imagining it, and I can't prove it!
This is ridiculous!

I can sympathise, but I think in the end the only thing you can rely on is what you believe to be true.

Originally posted by josephw
But if spirit is not matter how can science measure it?

If it isn't matter or energy, and doesn't exist in 4-dimensions then science says it doesn't exist. Knightmeister, on the other hand, knows better than Professor Einstein, Hawkins or any of the rest of them, has something that can exist in non-existence, even though non-existence doesn't exist for him.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If it isn't matter or energy, and doesn't exist in 4-dimensions then science says it doesn't exist. Knightmeister, on the other hand, knows better than Professor Einstein, Hawkins or any of the rest of them, has something that can exist in non-existence, even though non-existence doesn't exist for him.

No, I think you misunderstand him.
Let's imagine that current speculation on the origin of the conditions that led to the big bang are right - some sort of fluctuation in zero point energy fields led to the big bang.
This then leads to a requirement - scientifically speaking - to explain the zero point energy field.
Let's say we manage to do that with some other description or model.
At some point we get to a 'first' cause or 'first' entity from which the others sprang.
Now I know you'll tell me that the universe - space and time - began only with the big bang, which is true, but I'm talking beyond that to speculations by scientists about other universes, or multiverses.
Knightmeister is envisioing the point when our explanations end ...

Originally posted by bbarr
But if we restrict our attention to contingent propositions, then it will be equally difficult to prove non-negated existential claims... The question here isn't really about types of claims, but about the putative criterion of certainty.

I think there is also a separate issue about type of claims, where the claims are of the form:

At least one X exists in the universe

and

No X's exist in the universe

If we accept for the sake of argument some "ordinary-language" definition of proof (e.g. simple showing counts in most cases as proof of existence), it would have been far easier for ancient man to prove that at least one great auk existed in the universe than for us to prove now that no great auks exist in the universe. Surely this will be true for most claims of this sort?

I realise this is getting off the point - I think we've established that negative existential claims can be proved by any reasonable definition of "proof". And I accept that the central issue in debates of this sort is the criteria for proof.

Originally posted by josephw
But if spirit is not matter how can science measure it?

If spirit interacts with the universe in a measurable way then that interaction can be measured. If it does not then it doesn't really matter whether or not it exists. Christians normally claim that there is a significant interaction.

Originally posted by josephw
That sounds like a rhetorical question.
But no, I can't think of any spiritual matter that science even addresses.

Well brain research would address that in locating what could be called the "God centre" of the brain and measuring what happens during a spiritual experience such as prayer. It would be limited to the measurable.

Originally posted by dottewell
If we accept for the sake of argument some "ordinary-language" definition of proof (e.g. simple showing counts in most cases as proof of existence), it would have been far easier for ancient man to prove that at least one great auk existed in the universe than for us to prove now that no great auks exist in the universe. Surely this will be true for most c ...[text shortened]... of". And I accept that the central issue in debates of this sort is the criteria for proof.

In this case, you can't "prove" that there are no auks left and the same with dinosaurs. You can prove they did exist but that they no longer exist relies on the balance of probabilities. And then one appears ... like a coelecanth or stromatolites. Science is flexible in this regard.

Shouldn't we just then assume everything through null hypothesis? We construct a premise opposite to our intention and then aim to disprove it. Until we do so it remains the case that the negation is true.

This also seem realistic in a behavioural sense, we should strive continually to find proofs to counter our everyday assumptions, each subsequent failure to do so strengthens our invested credence in belief of a matter.

Caveat: I have drunk a good deal of ale this fair evening and am somewhat weak of mind, but in opposition I am full of a stirring, poetic lust I must explore.

1.) Whether the earth was ever flood totally by water is a matter of HISTORY not just science.

2.) It is a matter of interpretation as to whether or not the Bible intended to teach that the entire planet was flooded with water or just the area where early mankind was living (which would have been the world as far as they were concerned).

3.) Even if it was the whole planet, why couldn't the amount of planetary water slushed around and flooded all land asynchronously? If the oceans slushed across the land mass violently the whole earth could be flooded with the limited amount of water the earth has or had.

Besides the Bible said that the fountains of the deep spewed out water. So apparently some great stores of water came from underneath the surface of the earth as well as from the atmosphere.



4.) Now we heard that science informs us that religious people are stupid. Science can tell us that.

Stupid people like Louis Pastuer who was a man of faith and invented and perfected Pasteurization ?

Please show us your scientific formula or equation proving without a shadow of a doubt that religious people are stupid.

5.) Many people consider that to be spiritual and to be religious are not necessarily the same thing.

Originally posted by bbarr
By 'spiritual', do you mean 'relating to the spirit' or do you mean 'normative'? Science surely does address questions of the former sort, by showing that positing the existence of a soul is explanatorily unnecessary. Science doesn't directly address the latter sort of question, though it may be able to show that there are psychological limitations on what w ...[text shortened]... acter traits are either constitutive or instrumental to living those sorts of lives, etc.

Bbarr,

About a year ago, you proferred a definition of "spiritual" that entailed neither a supernatural nor a "religious" understanding...

Would you mind refreshing my memory? Thanks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If spirit interacts with the universe in a measurable way then that interaction can be measured. If it does not then it doesn't really matter whether or not it exists. Christians normally claim that there is a significant interaction.

I can think of one very important way in which the Spirit interacted with the universe. It happened when Jesus was resurrected.
But few will believe it even though there were over 500 witnesses.