4 ms·

Who said anything about any particular god?

Jedd 3y ago
You did - you used the capital-g version of god, which suggests you had a particular one in mind, and you mentioned the unproven virgin birth of Jesus, who according to that particular mythology was the son of / the actual christian deity. Thanks for the suggestion on the book - looks like it was written by a couple of christians, is that right? I'll see if I can find a copy at the local library. Hopefully you get a chance to read some deep-science, non-partisan, non-orthodox books on the subject, like the one I cited.
- jononomo 3y ago
  oh, get over it and face the science!
  - Jedd 3y ago
    What have I said that suggests I'm denying science? What have you said that suggests you're facing the science? I note you came in with 'life proves the supernatural'. This is not a unique claim, and repetition does not imbue it credibility.
    - jononomo 3y ago
      By "science" I just mean clear, rational thinking that is based on empiricism and does not have a prior commitment to a particular metaphysics or worldview.
      - Jedd 3y ago
        Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?
        jononomo 3y ago
        It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
        Jedd 3y ago
        I'm kind of happy with this pithy summary - plucked from the internet just now - of the definition of, and differences between, rationalism and empiricism: "rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation." In any case, empiricism is all about evidence based, typically via experimentation, so I'm still confused how you'd go about proving something unprovable (and almost certainly non-existent) by evidence and experiment. I think if you could demonstrate evidence of the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural. What empirical observations about life lead you to want to believe that life was designed by a superior intelligence? Is it the eye? (I note that ~60% of the population need glasses.) Is it smallpox, malaria, Leigh syndrome, etc? These don't feel like the result of an especially sophisticated intelligence. Is it the famously circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? Perhaps it's the the fact that Earth is one of about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe, therefore we must be special?
        jononomo 3y ago
        What is it about the Rosetta Stone that makes you think there was an intelligence behind it, rather than wind and erosion? Surely you don't believe that science cannot in principle detect the activity of intelligence, do you? If so you would have to dismiss anthropology, forensic science, cryptography, and the SETI project. As for your point that if you can detect the supernatural then it isn't supernatural, well, I almost took the time to address this in my earlier response, but decided to save my breath. Basically, I don't care whether you decide to define God as natural or supernatural -- the point is that we can determine with certainty that life is the product of an intelligence.

Jedd 3y ago

You did - you used the capital-g version of god, which suggests you had a particular one in mind, and you mentioned the unproven virgin birth of Jesus, who according to that particular mythology was the son of / the actual christian deity. Thanks for the suggestion on the book - looks like it was written by a couple of christians, is that right? I'll see if I can find a copy at the local library. Hopefully you get a chance to read some deep-science, non-partisan, non-orthodox books on the subject, like the one I cited.

jononomo 3y ago
oh, get over it and face the science!
- Jedd 3y ago
  What have I said that suggests I'm denying science? What have you said that suggests you're facing the science? I note you came in with 'life proves the supernatural'. This is not a unique claim, and repetition does not imbue it credibility.
  - jononomo 3y ago
    By "science" I just mean clear, rational thinking that is based on empiricism and does not have a prior commitment to a particular metaphysics or worldview.
    - Jedd 3y ago
      Well, I'd say that empiricism is a) a subset of what science is / means, and b) empiricism by itself would rule out any supernatural, by definition. Did you have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before you came to conclude that ".. the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god"?
      - jononomo 3y ago
        It sounds to me like you're starting with the assumption that empiricism must rule out the supernatural. That is what I mean by having a prior commitment to a metaphysic, and is therefore not a truly scientific approach. As for me, no I do not have an existing commitment to a belief in a deity before concluding that the existence of life is definitive proof of the existence of a god. Rather, it is the other way around -- it is the empirical observations about life that lead to the conclusion that it must have been designed by a superior intelligence. Obviously, you cannot begin with the assumption that the supernatural must be ruled out and then come to the conclusion that the supernatural must be ruled out without engaging in circular reasoning. Let the evidence guide you based on reason, but don't begin by assuming your conclusion.
        Jedd 3y ago
        I'm kind of happy with this pithy summary - plucked from the internet just now - of the definition of, and differences between, rationalism and empiricism: "rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation." In any case, empiricism is all about evidence based, typically via experimentation, so I'm still confused how you'd go about proving something unprovable (and almost certainly non-existent) by evidence and experiment. I think if you could demonstrate evidence of the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural. What empirical observations about life lead you to want to believe that life was designed by a superior intelligence? Is it the eye? (I note that ~60% of the population need glasses.) Is it smallpox, malaria, Leigh syndrome, etc? These don't feel like the result of an especially sophisticated intelligence. Is it the famously circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? Perhaps it's the the fact that Earth is one of about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe, therefore we must be special?
        jononomo 3y ago
        What is it about the Rosetta Stone that makes you think there was an intelligence behind it, rather than wind and erosion? Surely you don't believe that science cannot in principle detect the activity of intelligence, do you? If so you would have to dismiss anthropology, forensic science, cryptography, and the SETI project. As for your point that if you can detect the supernatural then it isn't supernatural, well, I almost took the time to address this in my earlier response, but decided to save my breath. Basically, I don't care whether you decide to define God as natural or supernatural -- the point is that we can determine with certainty that life is the product of an intelligence.