Religious claims are scientific claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Damian

Guest
Any claim is a scientific claim once the argument has nouns, associated with reality, in it.
Logical arguments are sentences without nouns and are just made up of adjectives and verbs.
Numbers are adjectives.
Mathematical operators are the verbs.
Ex: The internally logically consistent statement: 1 + 2 = 3
“1” of what?
“2” of what?
“3” of what?
1,2,3 are adjectives describing the quantity of the “what”, the noun.
“+”, “=” are the verb operators that you are doing with the nouns.
So yes, you can have an internal logically consistent argument, like A+B=C.
But once you restrict the identity of A, B or C to a noun associated to reality, then it becomes a scientific question.
Ex: “1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks” is a scientific conclusion to check against reality because rocks are associated within reality;
“1 fairy + 1 fairy = 2 fairies” is not a scientific conclusion to check against reality since “fairies” are not associate within reality.
If we can not falsify it or confirm it, the results of the internally logically consistent argument about reality is not something to hold as a justified true belief about reality until you can conclude either way.

Also, to be outside of reality is to not exist.
Our universe is not all of reality, it is just the detectable part of reality at this moment.
That is how we determine the difference between fantasy and reality claims. Fairies vs Rocks

The big bang is not when “time started”. Its just the tentative reference point on the number line of “zero” to reference time to because we can’t explore beyond that point yet. Its just the reference point to measure the amount of time that has passed since that point for the age of our universe.

Existence is necessarily temporal and to be detectable within reality in some way.
Ex: Einstein, mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist. His presentation was internally logically consistent, just like religious arguments for the supernatural. However, we were not justified in believing the conclusion to be a justified true belief about reality until we actually were able to detect that gravity waves exist in 2015. Once we were, conclusively, able to have reality demonstrate the results of the claim, that is when we are to update our model of reality. Not a moment sooner.

Justified belief about reality is to have that claim demonstrated within reality in some detectable way to us.
Ex: There could be a meteor coming to destroy our planet. We know that meteors exist in reality, we know that they can actually strike planets. However, until we actually discover that specific meteor, we are not justified in living as if that meteor is actually there and not justified in updating our model of reality yet. We are justified in looking for it though.
 
Last edited:
I can’t prove that Damian is a human being; Damian could just be a chatbot. There is no reason for me to engage in debate until it is conclusively proven to me that Damian is not a chatbot, so I will refrain from doing so until that time.
 
There are other ways to conclude that I am not a chat box that others can run that you are too ignorant of to run. So you’re justified in that conclusion because you can’t determine how to falsify that claim. Others can though.
 
I’m not following your argument here. What exactly are you try get us to see?

Your heading states “Religious claims are scientific claims”

The your first sentence says…
Damian said:
Any claim is a scientific claim once the argument has nouns, associated with reality, in it.
Click to expand...
This is confusing, aren’t many Religious claims based outside reality? So if the basis of your argument is it becomes a scientific claim once it is associated with reality how can something not associated with reality be a scientific claim in the first place?
Damian said:
Also, to be outside of reality is to not exist.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s true. Just because we can’t detect something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Take your example of gravity waves below, sure you couldn’t update your model until 2015 but before 2015 they did exist in reality you just didn’t know it.
Damian said:
However, until we actually discover that specific meteor, we are not justified in living as if that meteor is actually there and not justified in updating our model of reality yet. We are justified in looking for it though.
Click to expand...
No offense this sounds like nonsense. If you aren’t justified in living as if it’s there then why would you be looking for it.

Maybe you could bring it down a level and tell us in plain English what you want to discuss.

God Bless
 
My son is a scientist and an atheist.

I like to tell him that science is just a miracle in disguise.
True too.
🙂
 
Damian said:
The big bang is not when “time started”. Its just the tentative reference point on the number line of “zero” to reference time to because we can’t explore beyond that point yet. Its just the reference point to measure the amount of time that has passed since that point for the age of our universe.
Click to expand...
That is not the conventional understanding of the Big Bang, though some do hold that position. But I do not want to get into that again!
Damian said:
Once we were, conclusively, able to have reality demonstrate the results of the claim, that is when we are to update our model of reality. Not a moment sooner.
Click to expand...
Our model of reality is not that certain. When Einstein proposed gravity waves, many took it provisionally and started to look for them. Their model was updated (provisionally) until conclusive evidence existed. Generally we provisionally update our model of reality constantly- we do not need to get run over to know to look both ways before crossing a street. We exist in a model of reality that includes possibilities alongside realities.
 
I disagree.
A + B = C is a logic claim
1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks is a scientific claim using the language of logic to describe something in reference to reality. The noun “rock” is an object that is directly referenced to reality. So it is a scientific claim. If I used, “fairy” instead of “rock” then that would not be a scientific claim since “fairies” are not associated with reality.
 
Damian said:
1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks is a scientific claim using the language of logic to describe something in reference to reality. The noun “rock” is an object that is directly referenced to reality. So it is a scientific claim. If I used, “fairy” instead of “rock” then that would not be a scientific claim since “fairies” are not associated with reality.
Click to expand...
Wow. That’s some pretty strained logic.
Crocus said:
The OP is suspended until January 17 at 6 am.

If we just quietly walk away, this thread will close by itself.
Click to expand...
We tried. It didn’t work. 😉
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Justified belief about reality is to have that claim demonstrated within reality in some detectable way to us.
Ex: There could be a meteor coming to destroy our planet. We know that meteors exist in reality, we know that they can actually strike planets. However, until we actually discover that specific meteor, we are not justified in living as if that meteor is actually there and not justified in updating our model of reality yet. We are justified in looking for it though.
Click to expand...
What if we haven’t directly observed the meteor but see effects which can only be explained by such a meteor passing having a specific motion?
 
Damian said:
I disagree.
A + B = C is a logic claim
1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks is a scientific claim using the language of logic to describe something in reference to reality. The noun “rock” is an object that is directly referenced to reality. So it is a scientific claim. If I used, “fairy” instead of “rock” then that would not be a scientific claim since “fairies” are not associated with reality.
Click to expand...
So then when we say “marriage” is the union of a man and a woman that means something real?
 
Even provisionally is not a correct justified belief to hold about your model of reality because you are updating your model of reality based on an unverified idea about reality and then living your life by that updated model as if that idea of reality is actually the case.
Dovekin said:
many took it provisionally and started to look for them.
Click to expand...
Then the “many” that took it provisionally as the case were wrong to hold that as a justified belief about reality. They were justified in looking for them based on the logical argument of the mathematical model, but not justified at all in holding that belief as justified true belief about reality, even provisionally. That’s why the science text books didn’t get updated “provisionally”. They are updated after 2015 when we actually detected them in reality.
Dovekin said:
Generally we provisionally update our model of reality constantly- we do not need to get run over to know to look both ways before crossing a street.
Click to expand...
We have run the experiments that justify the conclusion to hold when two physical objects in reality attempt to occupy the same space as each other. That concept has been demonstrated in reality. Now what ever physical object you want to test that one will still react according to this identity of reality. However, there is not evidence at all that has been demonstrated to exist in reality of the supernatural, of spirits, or power channeled from that realm to this reality. So you can not have an extrapolation of “prayer worked to heal X so it will heal Y.” or anything else that is the equivalent of “physical object X strikes physical object Y” and thus extrapolate what would happen if you walk in front of a moving car.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Wow. That’s some pretty strained logic.
Click to expand...
Okay responses like this are tiring. Scientific claims are the application of logic when the nouns in the logical argument are in reference to reality. Your attempt at “strained logic” is just an attempt to poison the well here. If you can’t explain your position and what you find fault with the conversation, then stop wasting the readers and my time with comments like this.
 
While making accurate predictions of future discoveries is an argument strongly in favor of a scientific hypothesis, science isn’t in the business of proving things, but rather disproving them. For this reason, the test of whether or not a theory is scientific is whether or not any conceivable observation could prove it false; meanwhile, no amount of experimental evidence can prove a theory true. Now, that’s not to say refuted theories don’t make good approximations; we still use Newtonian physics today even though Einstein proved Newton wrong, simply because Newton’s equations are much simpler without having significant errors unless you need extreme precision or are dealing with particles travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. For most purposes which we encounter, the error of Newton’s equations is far surpassed by the error in the measuring devices used.
 
Marriage is a label of a social function that people are enacting together. No different than the label of “dancing” or the label, “rolling” when a rock rolls down a hill. They are words describing the actions of something that is referenced within reality. However, can you tell the difference between “marriage” and “psychic mind attack”? Both are labels to describe a function that someone is partaking in, but one is not in reference to reality at all while the other is. Does your religion provide you a way to tell the difference?
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Marriage is a label of a social function that people are enacting together. No different than the label of “dancing” or the label, “rolling” when a rock rolls down a hill. They are words describing the actions of something that is referenced within reality. However, can you tell the difference between “marriage” and “psychic mind attack”? Both are labels to describe a function that someone is partaking in, but one is not in reference to reality at all while the other is. Does your religion provide you away to tell the difference?
Click to expand...
Your whole construct just fell apart.
 
Wesrock said:
What if we haven’t directly observed the meteor but see effects which can only be explained by such a meteor passing having a specific motion?
Click to expand...
Such as “dark matter” then. We can see the affects on our universe and we call the cause of that “dark matter” because we understand how matter affects our observed universe and based on our model of the universe, for our mathematics to work in the model, we would need more matter than we have observed. So we call that unobservable matter that keeps our mathematical models work, “Dark Matter”. However, we have observed matter and how it affects our universe. We have never observed anything that we can attribute to the supernatural because the supernatural has yet to be demonstrated to be part of reality at all. Matter has. That is how I see the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top