The Modern Materialist

[Edward_H]

Regarding your personal insult (“Delusional”)…no gaslighting here please.

Terms of service violation.

 

[Edward_H]

No it’s not.

Acting on the testimony of others (whether about supernatural matters or temporal matters (getting on a plane)) is faith, and it’s a gift.

It’s a huge time saver, we don’t have to test and sort out everything ourselves! And we can build unity among the people of God at the same time.

Thus, it’s a great gift.

Sarcasm and snark don’t strengthen arguments.

 

[Edward_H]

Nonsense means makes no sense.

That’s different than dillusional.

One relates to an argument that doesn’t hold together.

The other relates to someone having dillusions.

 

[Sophie111]

Sophie111:

How does levitation happen?

…it can be explained as a local deviation in laws of nature.

Thats a fairly tautological and hence less than meaningful statement it seems.
(ie the “new” conclusion is but a repeat of whats hidden in the subject anyways).

You are saying no more than " levitation (which seems to deny the current laws of nature) is a “local” denial of the laws of nature."

Yes, if we accept that levitation happens its a denial/deviation re laws of science. We already know that which is why we are perplexed and ask for a scientific explanation…

The problem is that laws of science are meant to be inviolable unless another deeper law counteracts it.

Which is why iron boats can float and metal planes can fly.

So have another go!
What is the hidden law of science (if there actually is one) that explains levitation which denies all the usual anti-gravity “trumping” laws (eg Archimedes principle for iron boats and the Bernoulli principle for metal aircraft wings) we currently know about.

All “true believer” scientists I know realise this … and simply deny that levitation is ever possible.
Which is not helpful for dialogue with “believers” who cannot deny the evidence of their senses.
Nor is it a Philosophically tenable position because it can never be falsified by actual observation…they will always say there is a hidden wire, edited video, etc etc etc.
In other words it is a pre-biased statement re what reality is capable of.

Which is the point of my observation re the sort of statement “science can solve any problem that is real.” If it cannot then just say (1) it isnt a true problem or (2) it isnt real.

Totally non-falsifiable statement - and ultimately meaningless isn’t it?

 

[Wozza]

Acting on the testimony of others…It’s a huge time saver, we don’t have to test and sort out everything ourselves!

‘Hey, Ed. Have you heard that everyone says that God exists?’

‘That’s great. I can’t sort these things out myself so that’s a great time saver! And any news on whether they think that new bridge is safe? I need to get to the airport. Ah, which reminds me. When you ask them all about the bridge, could you check one more thing for me?’

 

[Edward_H]

Examine, if you can set aside the belittling and sarcasm stirred up, the instances in the Holy Gospels, where word of mouth, leads people to move toward Jesus.

How do you think the 5000 showed up on a hillside? The honest, non-belittling, testimony of others, interested in their neighbors’ good.

How many people are now searching to get closer to Our Lord because of our testimony?

How many are moved by our sincerity, our generosity, our acts of quiet charity, our tone?

How many people become more cynical and lowered by running across hate-fueled and belitting comments from us?

Do we raise the tone around us? Does our testimony of comments bring people to an ever greater good?

 

[STT]

Thats a fairly tautological and hence less than meaningful statement it seems.
(ie the “new” conclusion is but a repeat of whats hidden in the subject anyways).

You are saying no more than " levitation (which seems to deny the current laws of nature) is a “local” denial of the laws of nature."

No, it is not denial of the laws of nature but deviation in the formal laws of nature, what is normally known as the laws of nature. The formal laws of nature is valid in all place but one. Isn’t it? There is either another laws of nature in another place or randomness.

Yes, if we accept that levitation happens its a denial/deviation re laws of science. We already know that which is why we are perplexed and ask for a scientific explanation…

The problem is that laws of science are meant to be inviolable unless another deeper law counteracts it.

The laws of science is the most probable in any occasion. We just experiment a setup repetitively for a finite number of times and conclude that a specific behavior is the most probable.

Which is why iron boats can float and metal planes can fly.

So have another go!
What is the hidden law of science (if there actually is one) that explains levitation which denies all the usual anti-gravity “trumping” laws (eg Archimedes principle for iron boats and the Bernoulli principle for metal aircraft wings) we currently know about.

All “true believer” scientists I know realise this … and simply deny that levitation is ever possible.
Which is not helpful for dialogue with “believers” who cannot deny the evidence of their senses.
Nor is it a Philosophically tenable position because it can never be falsified by actual observation…they will always say there is a hidden wire, edited video, etc etc etc.
In other words it is a pre-biased statement re what reality is capable of.

Which is the point of my observation re the sort of statement “science can solve any problem that is real.” If it cannot then just say (1) it isnt a true problem or (2) it isnt real.

Totally non-falsifiable statement - and ultimately meaningless isn’t it?

Science is not about an explanation for behavior of a system but a systematic framework which provides a set of laws that any system most likely follow it.

 

[Sophie111]

No, it is not denial of the laws of nature but deviation in the formal laws of nature, what is normally known as the laws of nature. The formal laws of nature is valid in all place but one. Isn’t it? There is either another laws of nature in another place or randomness.

At least I could understand your tautology (which simply refined the problem to be local as opposed to universal but still offering no further information or real explanation). So I have no real idea what you are trying to say here sorry.

I think you are now asserting it is:
(a)

• not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
• another law of nature is operating at that spot

(b)

• if its not the above then there is “randomness” operating at that place.

May I suggest this is gibberish and does nothing to extend a scientific understanding of why something inconsistent is happening at that one spot on earth. Yes you are saying that spot is unusual…but we already know that dont we? That is why I am asking you to explain!
All you have done is repeated the obvious in a complicated way and still begged the question.

You have also created a further problem.
You assert an unknown law of nature is operating in that place but not in the rest of the world!

Mr Occam (of Occam’s Razor) would have great difficulty with this assumption as most scientists work from the principle that the least complicated reasonable explanation is the most likely one.

I suggest my assertion above is far simpler and more reasonable. That is, yes an unknown law of nature is demonstrated in that place … just as it applies in the rest of the cosmos. But like the first iron boat apparently opposing the law of gravity…noone has yet worked out the design or how to do so in the rest of the world.

It would be silly to say an iron boat only floats in Archimedes bathtub because there is some sort of divinely caused deviation of the formal laws of nature everywhere else and it has nothing to do with the art of Archimedes himself using universal laws of nature noone before realised.

Its just a complicated way of trying to reconcile science and divinity and succeeding in neither.
Therefore a “solution” which suggests laws of nature are not universal seems insupportable.

I have no idea what you mean by solution (b) “randomness”.

You are welcome to have another go at scientifically solving the “problem” of levitation…

 

[STT]

At…

I think you are now asserting it is:
(a)

• not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
• another law of nature is operating at that spot

(b)

• if its not the above then there is “randomness” operating at that place.

This is what I am asserting:
(a)

• not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
• another law of nature is operating at that spot

(b)

• not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
• “randomness” is operating at that place.

To elaborate, any system either behave regularly or it doesn’t. We can find and formulate the behavior of the system in first case. The system behave randomly in the second case so no formulation could be found.

May I suggest this is gibberish and does nothing to extend a scientific understanding of why something inconsistent is happening at that one spot on earth. Yes you are saying that spot is unusual…but we already know that dont we? That is why I am asking you to explain!
All you have done is repeated the obvious in a complicated way and still begged the question.

Science cannot explain why any system behave in a specific way. It just can formulate the behavior of the system if the system behave regularly.

You have also created a further problem.
You assert an unknown law of nature is operating in that place but not in the rest of the world!

Mr Occam (of Occam’s Razor) would have great difficulty with this assumption as most scientists work from the principle that the least complicated reasonable explanation is the most likely one.

The system behave randomly if it doesn’t behave regularly. This means that another laws of nature operates at the point or it is just random.

I suggest my assertion above is far simpler and more reasonable. That is, yes an unknown law of nature is demonstrated in that place … just as it applies in the rest of the cosmos. But like the first iron boat apparently opposing the law of gravity…noone has yet worked out the design or how to do so in the rest of the world.

You cannot say that another laws of nature operate in that place unless you can show that the system behave regularly in that place.

It would be silly to say an iron boat only floats in Archimedes bathtub because there is some sort of divinely caused deviation of the formal laws of nature everywhere else and it has nothing to do with the art of Archimedes himself using universal laws of nature noone before realised.

Its just a complicated way of trying to reconcile science and divinity and succeeding in neither.
Therefore a “solution” which suggests laws of nature are not universal seems insupportable.

I have no idea what you mean by solution (b) “randomness”.

You are welcome to have another go at scientifically solving the “problem” of levitation…

Ok. I hope that things are clear by now.

 

[Sophie111]

Perhaps English is a second language.
In which case nevermind.

Yes science can only explain things within a framework of regularity. Yes, most people see natural laws operating regularly and consistently in all places…so you seem to deny your own regularity principle by positing a unique levitation place where they dont.

Your regularity principle also means science cannot explain or solve 1 off problems or unique incidents …like levitation.

It seems you finally agree afterall.
Or to be consistent and regular you must deny levitation actually happens.

 

[STT]

Perhaps English is a second language.
In which case nevermind.

Yes science can only explain things within a framework of regularity. Yes, most people see natural laws operating regularly and consistently in all places…so you seem to deny your own regularity principle by positing a unique levitation place where they dont.

Your regularity principle also means science cannot explain or solve 1 off problems or unique incidents …like levitation.

It seems you finally agree afterall.
Or to be consistent and regular you must deny levitation actually happens.

Agree with what? The levitation is either random or it is not. In the second case there exist a set of laws of nature which can formulate the behavior of the system at the point.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

That’s a very weird point of view, and it isn’t held by any scientist I’ve ever encountered. I’d say that the scientific method is the best approach to solving any problem, but there is no scientific or philosophical justification for the claim that science can solve every problem.

 

[Sophie111]

Sophie111:

Perhaps English is a second language.
In which case nevermind.

Yes science can only explain things within a framework of regularity. Yes, most people see natural laws operating regularly and consistently in all places…so you seem to deny your own regularity principle by positing a unique levitation place where they dont.

Your regularity principle also means science cannot explain or solve 1 off problems or unique incidents …like levitation.

It seems you finally agree afterall.
Or to be consistent and regular you must deny levitation actually happens.

Agree with what? The levitation is either random or it is not. In the second case there exist a set of laws of nature which can formulate the behavior of the system at the point.

You may have forgotten the original question. Lets recap:

STT: Science can solve any problem related to reality.

You’ve provided a lot of meaningless sentences that seem to boil down to:
“Unknown natural laws that don’t operate anywhere else on earth operate at this levitating monk’s monastery and laws that operate everywhere else don’t operate there.”

That to me is worse than meaningless because:

1. It purports to explain what we already know (or dont know in this case).
2. It is unreasonable even in what it says from a scientific perspective because:

• Science assumes laws of nature work universally and everywhere (which is why they are called “laws”). You just broke that philosophic/methodic principle of science.
• Also, a far simpler “explanation” in accord with science would likelybe the one I provided above. Viz, no laws are suspended in this location as you opine. Rather all laws of nature are true laws and apply always and everywhere. Rather, an unknown law of nature that is applicable everywhere is being used by this monk in this place which seems to contradict the law of gravity but it doesn’t. Just as I explained above re iron boats floating and metal airplanes flying.

In short your “scientific explanation” is not only a somewhat meaningless explanation, it isnt even good science.

 

[Delusioned]

Also, a far simpler “explanation” in accord with science would likelybe the one I provided above. Viz, no laws are suspended in this location as you opine. Rather all laws of nature are true laws and apply always and everywhere. Rather, an unknown law of nature that is applicable everywhere is being used by this monk in this place which seems to contradict the law of gravity but it doesn’t.

Sorry, but to me your explanation doesn’t make any more sense than STT’s does. Your explanation seems to be that we accept levitation at face value, and then posit the existence of some indemonstrable law of physics that can’t be replicated nor explained.

The most likely explanation would seem to be the one that you want to dismiss, and that is that no levitation actually took place. If you wish to have a reasoned dialogue with a skeptic then that argument can’t simply be dismissed. At which point it either becomes an examination of the evidence, or the two parties simply agree to disagree, which was likely to be the outcome from the beginning.

 

[Sophie111]

Sorry, but to me your explanation doesn’t make any more sense than STT’s does. Your explanation seems to be that we accept levitation at face value…

If you reread my posts you will find you are mistaken.

As STT clearly accepts levitation in this discussion I am following on from there as the current point of debate.

 

[Sophie111]

The most likely explanation would seem to be the one that you want to dismiss, and that is that no levitation actually took place. If you wish to have a reasoned dialogue with a skeptic then that argument can’t simply be dismissed

I dont dismiss it.
I only dismiss skeptics who make a universal principle out of your statement that levitation did not take place. They usually do so subtley by means of their definition.
What is your definition of levitation?

 

[Sophie111]

At which point it either becomes an examination of the evidence, or the two parties simply agree to disagree, which was likely to be the outcome from the beginnin

Which is pretty much my original observation when STT opined science can solve any real problem!
ie deny the problem, or deny its real.

So thats a meaningless non falsifiable assertion isnt it.
Which all of us here know except for “true believer” scientists.

 

[STT]

You’ve provided a lot of meaningless sentences that seem to boil down to:
“Unknown natural laws that don’t operate anywhere else on earth operate at this levitating monk’s monastery and laws that operate everywhere else don’t operate there.”

That to me is worse than meaningless because:

1. It purports to explain what we already know (or dont know in this case).
2. It is unreasonable even in what it says from a scientific perspective because:

• Science assumes laws of nature work universally and everywhere (which is why they are called “laws”). You just broke that philosophic/methodic principle of science.

This claim is the result of observation. It can be falsified.

• Also, a far simpler “explanation” in accord with science would likelybe the one I provided above. Viz, no laws are suspended in this location as you opine. Rather all laws of nature are true laws and apply always and everywhere. Rather, an unknown law of nature that is applicable everywhere is being used by this monk in this place which seems to contradict the law of gravity but it doesn’t. Just as I explained above re iron boats floating and metal airplanes flying.

[/quote]
That unknown law of nature is in act locally so you are not saying more than what I said.

 

[Sophie111]

Sophie111:

You’ve provided a lot of meaningless sentences that seem to boil down to:
“Unknown natural laws that don’t operate anywhere else on earth operate at this levitating monk’s monastery and laws that operate everywhere else don’t operate there.”

That to me is worse than meaningless because:

1. It purports to explain what we already know (or dont know in this case).
2. It is unreasonable even in what it says from a scientific perspective because:

• Science assumes laws of nature work universally and everywhere (which is why they are called “laws”). You just broke that philosophic/methodic principle of science.

This claim is the result of observation. It can be falsified.

If you accept that there is a philosophic principle/method of science called “laws of nature” (which you seem to as you use the term) then you have clearly contradicted them in your method of finding an explanation.
My approach does not.

Yes the principle is sort of falsifiable (this single levitation must “prove” all the laws of nature that worked everywhere for the last 2000 years of recorded history are false/suspended at this monastery). I suggest though that this begs the question…it is more likely the levitation is in accord with natural laws if no explanation spiritual or material can be discerned as yet. And even then a natural explanation must always be preferred to a spiritual if evidence is inconclusive either way (Occam’s Razor).

That unknown law of nature is in act locally so you are not saying more than what I said.

Yes my unknown law, I submit, must act universally (yours doesnt) … in harmony with all lesser laws.

Yes I agree that apart from the beginings of a method to explain…my scientific approach explains no more than yours.

But then that is what I have been saying all along isnt it - “science cannot solve everything”
You seem to have forgotten that was the point of this discussion… “solve levitation!”

This has yet to be adequately explained by science (and religion for that matter) as far as I know.

 

[STT]

If you accept that there is a philosophic principle/method of science called “laws of nature” (which you seem to as you use the term) then you have clearly contradicted them in your method of finding an explanation.

I meant that former laws of nature could be falsified if we see any deviation in it therefore I am not contradicting myself.

My approach does not.

Your approach is not different from mine.

Yes the principle is sort of falsifiable (this single levitation must “prove” all the laws of nature that worked everywhere for the last 2000 years of recorded history are false/suspended at this monastery). I suggest though that this begs the question…it is more likely the levitation is in accord with natural laws if no explanation spiritual or material can be discerned as yet. And even then a natural explanation must always be preferred to a spiritual if evidence is inconclusive either way (Occam’s Razor).

The spiritual world is also subjected to its own laws. Even God acts according to laws so called Omniscience.

Yes my unknown law, I submit, must act universally (yours doesnt) … in harmony with all lesser laws.

Again, what you are suggesting is not different from mines. You call the formal laws of nature as the lesser one.

Yes I agree that apart from the beginings of a method to explain…my scientific approach explains no more than yours.

Your method is equal to mine.

But then that is what I have been saying all along isnt it - “science cannot solve everything”
You seem to have forgotten that was the point of this discussion… “solve levitation!”

Science can solve everything. Even Gods act is subjected to laws, as I mentioned omniscience.

This has yet to be adequately explained by science (and religion for that matter) as far as I know.

There is eventually no need for religion since science ultimately can answer everything.