psac -- your throwing out occams razor? i think its difficult to say that "more testable, less flexible" is NOT a good measure of how well an explanation is. thats basically it. if you disagree on that point, it do boil down to belief and i will readily admit i got no persuasive arguments.
I need a show of hands: who believes the Bible and to what extent?
by Terry 206 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PSacramento
psac -- your throwing out occams razor? i think its difficult to say that "more testable, less flexible" is NOT a good measure of how well an explanation is. thats basically it. if you disagree on that point, it do boil down to belief and i will readily admit i got no persuasive arguments.
Nope, I don't throw out anything that I can use to shave with ;)
It seems to me that you have issues with soemthing that is not testable and can be viewed as "supernatural", and while I can understand the untestable part, the "supernatural" I don't get since science has not yet closed the book on what is natual and supernatural in terms of final definitions, has it?
I mean, natural to US is our natural universe as we know it, right?
If that is the case then something like the big bang is supernaturla because nothing like it occurs in our natural world, soemthing can't coem from nothing in our naturla world, can it?
heck, not to long ago a "virgin birth" would be considered supernaturla, not anymore and we have science to thank for that.
-
bohm
psac -- i am trying to avoid the destinction between supernatural and natural precisely for the reasons you mention. my point is that not all "supernatural" explanations are the same. a wave-function with a complex phase IS a pretty supernatural object from a newtonian standpoint (just ask Einstein), but its supernatural in a much more limited sence than eg. a holy ghost.
in a similar sence, a theory of inflation is supernatural in some sence (it refer to a previously unknown phenomona), but it does predict certain things and behave in a much more predictable and quantitative manner than the holy ghost.
-
PSacramento
I think you may h ave a narrow view of supernatural, maybe because of the word or term being used and the connections to it.
Would another word be better?
You mention the HS, and certainly an entitiy that is not corpreal and yet can show people an understandging beyond the norm and do things beyond the norm is certianly viewed as supernatual in the most common sense of the word and yet if we were to discover such a thing and it be proven by science, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore but apart of nature, even if the only one of it's type, yes?
-
bohm
psac: absolutely.
but thats the problem: there is no way to check if the holy spirit is there. the complex phase of the wave function behave in a quite predictable manner and has some properties that are directly observable: it end up becoming a "small" assumption compared to what it predict and explain.
i think the holy ghost is very different in that way. to take on property of the holy ghost, its ability to impregnate women. what ways are there to test this?
-
PSacramento
but thats the problem: there is no way to check if the holy spirit is there. the complex phase of the wave function behave in a quite predictable manner and has some properties that are directly observable: it end up becoming a "small" assumption compared to what it predict and explain.
Understood and agreed in regards to current scientific methods.
i think the holy ghost is very different in that way. to take on property of the holy ghost, its ability to impregnate women. what ways are there to test this?
Could it be possible to manipulate energy at its most base level and be able to create life from that energy?
-
bohm
psac: "Could it be possible to manipulate energy at its most base level and be able to create life from that energy?"
yes, but please try to read what i wrote in my last post again. your not really addressing the subject by asking me if its possible that there may exist an as-of-now unknown technology that behave like the holy spirit.
let me take an example. lets say we are trying to figure out why some experiment come out the way it does, and two scientists propose:
- the electron is perhaps best described as a complex wave-function that evolve through the schrodinger equation.
- the holy spirit may manipulate the electron just like the holy spirit wish.
clearly the first explanation is the better, even though explanation two is possible (like you noted, if a scientist was critical of explanation #2 one might object: "Could it be possible to manipulate energy at its most base level and be able to manipulate the electron that way?"). im trying to focus on why explanation #1 should be preferred over #2.
-
Ding
Bohm,
Suppose a tracking station starts picking up from somewhere in space energy bursts which are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, etc. -- the prime numbers in sequence -- and this goes on in order for days.
Scientist A proposes the theory that this is a sentient life form -- probably from a distant galaxy -- trying to inititate contact.
Scientist B argues that only natural phenomena are acceptable to science, that positing an intelligent source violates Occam's razor.
On whose side of this would you come down?
-
bohm
Ding: I would come down with scientist A. Scientist B draw a very illogical conclusion.
-
PSacramento
yes, but please try to read what i wrote in my last post again. your not really addressing the subject by asking me if its possible that there may exist an as-of-now unknown technology that behave like the holy spirit.
No one said anything about technology but you asked if there was a way to test this, that is your question right?
And the answer would be by whatever means we have at our disposal.
let me take an example. lets say we are trying to figure out why some experiment come out the way it does, and two scientists propose:
the electron is perhaps best described as a complex wave-function that evolve through the schrodinger equation.
the holy spirit may manipulate the electron just like the holy spirit wish.
clearly the first explanation is the better, even though explanation two is possible (like you noted, if a scientist was critical of explanation #2 one might object: "Could it be possible to manipulate energy at its most base level and be able to manipulate the electron that way?"). im trying to focus on why explanation #1 should be preferred over #2.
If one option is more probable than the other, even if both are possible, I would probably agree with the more probable one.
Of course we would ba arguing what defines as more probable, especially if BOTH options are outside the naturla realm, which means BOTH could be JUST as probable and just as possible.
Then the only thing that would make you prefer A) to B) is your issues with what you deem supernatural.