What's your religion?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

You mean "nature," or "scientific knowledge," not the scientific process itself.

Uh...yeah. Thanks for making it clearer in words for me.

The limitation is the limitation of our knowledge (our understanding of nature). Our limits will increase once our technology improves, so that we can gather more data and perform more experiments.

But our very own understood data may be completely false, what do you think will happen if that occurs?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

But our very own understood data may be completely false, what do you think will happen if that occurs?

Not all of our data can be false, because we've been able to use the laws and theories we've derived from them in engineering project. If Newton's data turned out to be BS (and his laws of gravity are BS in turn), then we would not have been able to build impressive bridges and skyscrapers. These days, "false" data usually comes in the form of inaccurate measurements, which can be corrected with new tools.

In a situation where humans enter a different dimension with different physical laws (and yet are somehow able to stay alive), then the first step of the scientific process would be to pull out a ruler and start measuring things to gather data.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Not all of our data can be false, because we've been able to use the laws and theories we've derived from them in engineering project. If Newton's data turned out to be BS (and his laws of gravity are BS in turn), then we would not have been able to build impressive bridges and skyscrapers. These days, "false" data usually comes in the form of inaccurate measurements, which can be corrected with new tools.

In a situation where humans enter a different dimension with different physical laws (and yet are somehow able to stay alive), then the first step of the scientific process would be to pull out a ruler and start measuring things to gather data.

But what happens if these "laws" are bended? Would all of our impressive architectures break down? We may have put "laws" in practical uses, but can theses actually prove them? What if these "laws" are, perhaps, just supported by a non-material barrier of science?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

But what happens if these "laws" are bended? Would all of our impressive architectures break down? We may have put "laws" in practical uses, but can theses actually prove them? What if these "laws" are, perhaps, just supported by a non-material barrier of science?

If the actual physical laws are bended, then yes I would expect structures to collapse everywhere. If on the other hand only our knowledge changes, then it just means we are capable of building even more impressive ones. Being able to use a "law" is evidence that said "law" is adequate for the given engineering purposes, proving that it is in fact correct in that range of values.

What do you mean by "non-material barrier of science?" If such a thing exists, it will be measured and experimented with, and incorporated into our knowledge. If magic exists, wizards study it, and are able derive its properties and harness its power, as in many fantasy settings, it would actually be considered a science.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

If the actual physical laws are bended, then yes I would expect structures to collapse everywhere. If on the other hand only our knowledge changes, then it just means we are capable of building even more impressive ones. Being able to use a "law" is evidence that said "law" is adequate for the given engineering purposes, proving that it is in fact correct in that range of values.

What do you mean by "non-material barrier of science?" If such a thing exists, it will be measured and experimented with, and incorporated into our knowledge. If magic exists, wizards study it, and are able derive its properties and harness its power, as in many fantasy settings, it would actually be considered a science.

Interesting. Magic *might* be science. Religion *might* be science. Ghosts *might* be science. Aliens *might* be science. And ESP-ers *might* be science. Does making actual practical use of laws confirms it as having enough evidence?

[Cub-Sama]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Interesting theory. So, what's *your* religion?

Christianity why do you ask?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Christianity why do you ask?

The same reason why you ask: curiosity. No, I just wanted to learn more of how people's religion affect what and how they comment on religion-related issues. I would've been surprised if you said "atheist".

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Interesting. Magic *might* be science. Religion *might* be science. Ghosts *might* be science. Aliens *might* be science. And ESP-ers *might* be science. Does making actual practical use of laws confirms it as enough evidence?

If the real world was like Dungeons and Dragons, where magic, deities, and other dimensions are a part of nature, then it would all be subject to scientific investigation, and the laws they follow would be determined and put to use.

The reason why these things are not considered science in the real world is because all the data that can be attributed to them can either all be debunked, or attributed to normal natural laws. Without any data (which can be as simple as an indisputable sighting of an unknown phenomena), there can be no measurements or experimentation, hence why the "supernatural" is not considered science.

As for "enough evidence," making practical use of what we know only confirms that we have "enough" to accomplish what we want. It does not confirm that we have "all" the evidence. More evidence would either confirm our existing laws, or add to them so that our approximations become closer to the actual truth.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

If the real world was like Dungeons and Dragons, where magic, deities, and other dimensions are a part of nature, then it would all be subject to scientific investigation, and the laws they follow would be determined and put to use.

The reason why these things are not considered science in the real world is because all the data that can be attributed to them can either all be debunked, or attributed to normal natural laws. Without any data (which can be as simple as an indisputable sighting of an unknown phenomena), there can be no measurements or experimentation, hence why the "supernatural" is not considered science.

But you agree that it can't be be both disproved and proved its truth as science?

As for "enough evidence," making practical use of what we know only confirms that we have "enough" to accomplish what we want. It does not confirm that we have "all" the evidence.

Enough to *practically* accomplish what we want. But I guess its better to "keep going" than dwell on nowhere.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

But you agree that it can't be be both disproved and proved its truth as science?

Science has not "disproved" magic, ghosts, or God, because there is no evidence on which to make that determination. Instead, it is the evidence of such which is disproven, on the basis of being explainable by existing laws. In other words, science acknowledges that magic, ghost, or God might exist, but there is no evidence of such.

If God were to make a real-life appearance, scientists would acknowledge the existence of a powerful being, and attempt to determine what the limits of its powers are. In that case, denying would be considered unscientific.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Science has not "disproved" magic, ghosts, or God, because there is no evidence on which to make that determination. Instead, it is the evidence of such which is disproven, on the basis of being explainable by existing laws. In other words, science acknowledges that magic, ghost, or God might exist, but there is no evidence of such.

If God were to make a real-life appearance, scientists would acknowledge the existence of a powerful being, and attempt to determine what the limits of its powers are. In that case, denying would be considered unscientific.

Sounds good enough to me. So, what's your religion?

EDIT: one more thing. The existence of God, Ghosts, and Magic will definitely bend "science" "laws". I guess that's why they're considered "supernatural" and "unscientific"....Although the word usage seems to bother a little with understanding.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Sounds good enough to me. So, what's your religion?

EDIT: one more thing. The existence of God, Ghosts, and Magic will definitely bend "science" "laws". I guess that's why they're considered "supernatural" and "unscientific"....Although the word usage seems to bother a little with understanding.

I'm atheist. If God(s) actually make an appearance, then I'll believe in their existence.

"Supernatural" means outside of nature... yet if that stuff is actually proven to exist, it would be considered a part of nature and not "supernatural" anymore. Their existence will demonstrate that our current laws are inadequate to explain their existence, but not that they are beyond human understanding for all time.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I'm atheist. If God(s) actually make an appearance, then I'll believe in their existence.

Interesting, your way of expressing your knowledge were balanced but I think I did sense an "atheist" there.

"Supernatural" means outside of nature... yet if that stuff is actually proven to exist, it would be considered a part of nature and not "supernatural" anymore.

So, until its proven(not implying it will), It can't be called natural? But its also not disproved, am I right? Won't that disqualify its being "supernatural"? For example, the "laws" themselves may not be "natural", since they too aren't proven.

Isn't it really more of a "belief" area?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So, until its proven(not implying it will), It can't be called natural? But its also not disproved, am I right? Won't that disqualify its being "supernatural"? For example, the "laws" themselves may not be "natural", since they too aren't proven.

Something that has been disproven is not "supernatural," it is simply "false." Supernatural would fall under the category, "cannot be proven (nor disproven) due to lack of evidence."
The scientific laws are considered "proven" in that it consistently explains the data we have, and can be disproven if new data contradicts it. The laws are human constructs, and are only natural as long as they fit the data.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Supernatural would fall under the category, "cannot be proven (nor disproven) due to lack of evidence."

Then shouldn't science "laws" be considered as "supernatural"? (as well)

The scientific laws are considered "proven" in that it consistently explains the data we have, and can be disproven if new data contradicts it. The laws are human constructs, and are only natural as long as they fit the data.

Does this actually qualify it as proven? Does fitting the data mean proven?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Then shouldn't science "laws" be considered as "supernatural"? (as well)

No, because there is evidence that they are true: scientific laws are created by humans for the purpose of fitting all the data (while theories explain the reasons for the data). If there is not enough evidence, then there will be no law in the first place.

Does this actually qualify it as proven? Does fitting the data mean proven?

It's "proven to fit the data," because that's what they were created to do; there is no reason not to believe in it without contradicting evidence, in which case the law is disproven and replaced.
As for scientific theories, they're called theories because they cannot be proven (but can be disproven). Theories make predictions, and there is no certainty that any prediction about the future will always be true, even if an experiment has succeeded hundreds of times in the past.

[Proto]

Clarifying on the ongoing debate topic, one of the reasons hypothesis regarding God and the whole God concepts cannot be tested or be falsifiable in any sense. From the Wiki article and fasifiability

The idea of falsifiability can be used to draw a distinction between falsifiable and nonfalsifiable notions of God. The nonfalsifiable notions describe what we think of as God's transcendental qualities; because they are independent of anything in the physical world, no physical circumstances are sufficient to prove or disprove their existence. By contrast, falsifiable accounts of God are physically definite, and can therefore be thought of as a personification, or "deification," of ideas that, at least purportedly, could be formulated as (read: testable) theories of physics.[16]

In that sense, it is impossible to arrive to the notion of a omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God as described by the Abrahamanic religions by any physical means, given that if he actually were to exist, we cannot assert so through our own means, and if it is a God that we can assert through our own physical means, then it is a much more humble God than the one described by most religions.


In that sense, normally most theologists agree that the matter of God is a matter of faith. faith being the only actually way you can arrive to him. In that case, you cannot actually rationalize the concept of God.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Christianity why do you ask?

I'll ask a follow-up. "Christianity" is a bit vague (actually very vague). What particular sect of Christianity do you belong to?

There's a huge amount of difference between various interpretations of the faith. (all the major faiths have major differences in their various strains).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Proto

Clarifying on the ongoing debate topic, one of the reasons hypothesis regarding God and the whole God concepts cannot be tested or be falsifiable in any sense. From the Wiki article and fasifiability



In that sense, it is impossible to arrive to the notion of a omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God as described by the Abrahamanic religions by any physical means, given that if he actually were to exist, we cannot assert so through our own means, and if it is a God that we can assert through our own physical means, then it is a much more humble God than the one described by most religions.


In that sense, normally most theologists agree that the matter of God is a matter of faith. faith being the only actually way you can arrive to him. In that case, you cannot actually rationalize the concept of God.

He's also supposed to be "omnibenevolent", which, combined with his other omnis, I find inconsistent with the state of the world. Of course, it might just be a problem with the notion of benevolence. But if he's not benevolent as we people mean the word, then why should we people use that word to describe him?

I mean, He might have some kind of moral system where bad things sometimes happening to good people is good, and He might be its perfect expression - but if a man rejoiced about babies getting stuffed in fridges, we'd call him a jerk, not benevolent.

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

we'd call him a jerk, not benevolent.

True. But Christians are too scared lest they blaspheme and burn in hell. ooohhh....