The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[DaveC426913]

My gripe is with the idea that one can claim REAL events are caused by or influenced by entities with questionable (or unproved) existence. Re-read that if necessary; I've chosen my words carefully.

OK.

The goalposts have now been moved so far from where they started, first by jj and now by you, that we're actually on a different field.

Frankly, the fact that we are no longer discussing the original topic is something that I choose to take as a sign that I've successfully fended off counterarguments to the original point. It is as close to a 'win' in a debate as one is ever going to get on the intertubes.

 

[Phrak]

As much as I am continually impressed by the ingenious insights of established scientific theory, I do not forget that it is theory not fact. We can be very smug and proud in what we think we know until it is rendered subordinal to the next better idea. As an offender, I know this personally.

I challenge anyone, using their latest and greatest science, to prove or motivate in a scientific way, say, that God did not start the universe and all we know, complete with memories, dinosaur bones, and the rest, yesterday at 3 pm.

 

[JaredJames]

first by jj

When was that?

As much as I am continually impressed by the ingenious insights of established scientific theory, I do not forget that it is theory not fact. We can be very smug and proud in what we think we know until it is rendered subordinal to the next better idea. As an offender, I know this personally.

I challenge anyone, using their latest and greatest science, to prove or motivate in a scientific way, say, that God did not start the universe and all we know, complete with memories, dinosaur bones, and the rest, yesterday at 3 pm.

Again, my whole point has been that you can claim what you like. But it is down to you to prove it and if you can't prove it, it remains strictyl opinion and not in any way factual.

I agree there are a multitude of things we can't explain. But that does not default the explanation to god(s).

If science offers an explanation for the formation of dinosaur fossils, and can provide evidence to back it up, that is what science has to say on the subject. If you want to refute this and say god did it, you have to back that up with proof otherwise it is meaningless and simply your opinion.
This is where things get sticky because you can, as you did above, claim god (or any higher being), 'planted' the evidence for us to find and create our memories.
However, just because of this problem area it doesn't make it fact or any closer to being fact. It is still opinion because you can't back it up with any proof.

Also, a theory is put forward by science based on the evidence at hand. No, it may not be completely correct (if not completely incorrect), but that doesn't make another persons 'theory'* on a subject stand on equal footing, especially with nothing to back it up (in other words it's sitting in the land of pure speculation and happy thoughts).

(*Theory as used in general conversation - aka hypothesis.)

 

[Phrak]

When was that?

Again, my whole point has been that you can claim what you like. But it is down to you to prove it and if you can't prove it, it remains strictyl opinion and not in any way factual.

It is not my obligation to prove anything. And two, you've invoked a false dichotomy.

 

[JaredJames]

It is not my obligation to prove anything. And two, you've invoked a false dichotomy.

You can claim anything you want. I can make the claim that there is a purple unicorn hiding on the dark side of the moon, but it is strictly my opinion/belief speaking with said claim.

I cannot claim that statement as factual unless I can prove it.

If you want to make a claim such as the above, it is up to you to prove it. It's not for someone else to prove and it isn't for someone else to disprove.

Please explain the fallacy of my above thinking (including my previous post).

If I make the claim the Moon orbits the Earth, there is evidence to back it up. If I make the claim the Earth orbits the Moon, there is zero evidence to back it up. You can either back it up or you can't. Sketchy details don't make facts.

If there is no evidence, you can't state something as fact (see definition of fact). It is only your belief in that statement that makes it factual to you. If you want others to believe it, it is down to you back up your claims, no one else.

 

[DaveC426913]

first by jj

When was that?

In post 21 I quote you as saying "[nothing] is outside of science".

In post 30, you acknowledge that "a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist".

By post 55, you have acknowledged that many things are currently beyond the reach of science - though you argue that should some actual evidence present itself, science will have something to say about it then. Note again: until and unless evidence presents itself, science can't say much.

I'll clarify: unless evidence presents itself about somethinng such as ghosts, science can't say anything either way.

 

[JaredJames]

In post 21 I quote you as saying "[nothing] is outside of science".

In post 30, you acknowledge that "a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist".

By post 55, you have acknowledged that many things are currently beyond the reach of science - though you argue that should some actual evidence present itself, science will have something to say about it then. Note again: until and unless evidence presents itself, science can't say much.

I'll clarify: unless evidence presents itself about somethinng such as ghosts, science can't say anything either way.

I acknowledge science can't say anything until it has evidence. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe "nothing is outside of science".

Perhaps I should clarify, when I say "nothing is outside of science" I am referring to whether it be now or in the future. I'm saying that I believe that science has the potential to explain everything (or at least offer some sort of explanation), it's just that currently we aren't able to understand/describe/explain everything.

There is a difference between saying "it's outside the realm of science now" and "it's always going to be outside the realm of science". I don't believe anything will remain outside the realm of science.

Science offers an explanation of the 'whats' / 'hows' of the universe. If science has a reasonable and verifiable explanation of what caused an event or what happened, there is no need to include a 'god factor' (or any other spiritual/supernatural factor). It is a redundant issue. If it isn't required to explain the event, why include it? Because of the human need to believe in a 'bigger picture'? Who knows, each to their own. Science doesn't have to explain any non-existent entity (god, ghosts, demons etc) if they aren't required to explain an event. It is only when science requires [insert entity here] be present that it needs to have anything to do with it or attempt to show it's existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I acknowledge science can't say anything until it has evidence. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe "nothing is outside of science".

These two statements are contradictory.

Statement 1 gives a clear example of one thing that is "outside of science", to wit: "anything that does not have evidence".


Note btw, that statement 1 is further strengthened because you must acknowledge the following correction:

...science can't say anything until and unless it has evidence.

Would you agree that it is possible (indeed, quite likely) that, on certain subjects (for example: God) no evidence will be forthcoming. Ever.

There is a difference between saying "it's outside the realm of science now" and "it's always going to be outside the realm of science". I don't believe anything will remain outside the realm of science.

I think it goes without saying (as in: we all agree) that - should any piece of evidence about any topic in the universe present itself - that piece of evidence can be examined scientifically.

All I'm doing is showing the corollary. That an absence of evidence can result in an absence of scientific discussion, yet there can still be discussion to be had (for example, logical, philosphical).

Science offers an explanation of the 'whats' / 'hows' of the universe. If science has a reasonable and verifiable explanation of what caused an event or what happened, there is no need to include a 'god factor' (or any other spiritual/supernatural factor). It is a redundant issue. If it isn't required to explain the event, why include it?

This is the stance science takes, yes. But 'why include it' is not the same as 'it does not exist'.

On the question of "but does it exist?", science is silent.

 

[JaredJames]

All I'm doing is showing the corollary. That an absense of evidence can result in an absense of scientific discussion, yet there can still be discussion to be had (for example, logical, philosphical).

Agreed, but as per previous posts, you can't discuss it as factual (basically my main point in this thread). I say A should float, you say A should sink, A can't be proven to exist so any discussion from us is based purely on our own opinions of what A is.

I think we can all agree on this point.

This is the stance science takes, yes. But 'why include it' is not the same as 'it does not exist'.

Agreed, but we don't have to assume it exists either. It should be dismissed (as it's not required).

For example, based on the fact I believe that science has the potential to explain everything I have no need to include a god (that is, unless some scientific theory requires it - in which case I want evidence for it). I dismiss the whole concept of god (or ghosts and the like), it's not about believing they do / do not exist. There's nothing to prove (or disprove).

This is why I say "nothing is outside the realms of science". Just because you discuss the possibility of something (for example ghosts to explain noises in the night), it doesn't mean they might exist. It simply means you are inventing something, in this case ghosts, and using them to plug the gap in your / current knowledge to provide a reason for the noises you hear at night. There is no basis for this solution to the noises.

Until we have evidence to evaluate regarding ghosts (or any of these entities) my stance is simple, I dismiss them. As far as I'm concerned they were never on the table in the first place.

These two statements are contradictory.

Statement 1 gives a clear example of one thing that is "outside of science", to wit: "anything that does not have evidence".

Please note my clarification below the quoted line of text. Like I said, when I say "nothing is outside of science", I'm not simply referring to the here and now. I am referring to now and in the future. I see no reason why there should be a phenomenon that science can't explain.

Note btw, that statement 1 is further strengthened because you must acknowledge the following correction:

Would you agree that it is possible (indeed, quite likely) that, on certain subjects (for example: God) no evidence will be forthcoming. Ever.

In addition to my response above, I'll add this:
I do agree that on a subject like god, no evidence will be forthcoming. But, given we don't have a need to use a god to explain anything why do we entertain the notion of one? So far we don't use it to explain anything, we don't need it to explain anything, so what is the purpose of said god (or any spiritualistic beings)? It's all very well saying we can't disprove it, but what is the purpose of it in the first place?
Until the need to include a 'god factor' or the 'ghost factor' or the 'unicorn factor' in the calculations occurs, it serves no purpose and should be dismissed in the same way as my moon roaming pink unicorn.

It's like writing a piece of code and leaving in a bunch of random, unused variables declared. They aren't utilised anywhere within the code and serve absolutely no purpose. So why would you do it? I wouldn't.

If science doesn't need something such as a ghost, why is it going to try and explain it? So far virtually every ghost out there has been debunked and so far non of the explanations have involved a ghost.

 

[FlexGunship]

OK.

The goalposts have now been moved so far from where they started, first by jj and now by you, that we're actually on a different field.

Dave, don't act surprised when that happens as a result of injecting specific examples. If your counter-argument includes counter-examples you must expect that someone will address those counter-examples, especially if they are controversial in their role as counter-examples.

Ill do my best to steer clear of feeding a roaming wildfire, but it seems that some people have chosen, a priori, that they want to believe in something un-proof-worthy. And then they start working from there with explanations and building models of the universe. These indiviuals declare, by fiat, that some ideas are beyond science. However, it remains that only the ideas they have invented are outside of science (gods, ghosts, and the like) and certainly not all of the other things that are discovered by the application of scientific principle.

If there's no way to tell the difference between a universe with invisible unicorns and without, then what is the point of postulating them?

The corollary: if you can tell the difference between a universe with invisible unicorns and without, then isn't that a measurable difference?

Or, the converse: if there were hard scientific proof of a invisible unicorns, would you still claim these unicorns were outside the bounds of science and disregard the evidence?

 

[FlexGunship]

* 110% is for slackers. 130% is the new 110%.

Heh, I got a kick out of this.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, given we don't have a need to use a god to explain anything why do we entertain the notion of one? So far we don't use it to explain anything, we don't need it to explain anything, so what is the purpose of said god (or any spiritualistic beings)? It's all very well saying we can't disprove it, but what is the purpose of it in the first place?

Because, when all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there is more to being human than scientific analysis.

We all (me, you, Flex) have beliefs that we build our world from. Ours may not be about God, but make no mistake, we all choose our time to discuss things unscientifically. The fact that you may choose to do it showing your gf a beautiful sunset is really no different or more valid than someone else feeling that their life has a deeper meaning than simply aeons of biochemistry.

There's a time and place for scientific analysis, and there's a time and place for just being human.

 

[FlexGunship]

Because, when all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there is more to being human than scientific analysis.

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

I understand, but do not sympathize with, your feelings that "there must be more." There no reason to expect there's anything more, which is all the more reason to make every possible second count and enjoy the chemical aberrations we experience as love, joy, and excitement.

Just because we're nothing more than complex chemical reactions doesn't dimish in any way the art we create, the beauty we perceieve, or the emotions we feel and share with each other.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding existence, it is being asserted here that there are no mysteries; that we have a complete decscription of the universe, its beginning, and the physics underlying that beginning?

Where is our unified theory?

String theory offers some possible answers, but many physicists don't even consider that a legitimate theory. And the assertion that everything came from nothing is as much a statement of faith as any belief in a God.

 

[JaredJames]

I haven't said that ivan and I am not sure anyone has. I've simply said i don't see why science couldn't explain everything if provided with evidence.

Sure there are mysteries out there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't said that ivan and I am not sure anyone has. I've simply said i don't see why science couldn't explain everything if provided with evidence.

Sure there are mysteries out there.

I was responding to Flex and the claim that any potential need for a God to explain existence has been completely eliminated. That is simply not true. It is a statement of faith, not fact.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh, apologies. I am on my phone trying to skim read whilst waiting for a heavily delayed train.
Not exactly concentrating 100%.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, apologies. I am on my phone trying to skim read whilst waiting for a heavily delayed train.
Not exactly concentrating 100%.

Heh, I often try to chime in during brief work breaks and completely miss the train of the conversation. I hate it when that happens!

 

[FlexGunship]

Heh, I've been on my phone for the last few days. Visiting my sister quite a few states away. Doing the same as you all, skimming without trying to miss what's going on and still contributing in a meaningful way.

Regarding existence, it is being asserted here that there are no mysteries; that we have a complete decscription of the universe, its beginning, and the physics underlying that beginning?

I would modify that statement a bit. Its not that there are "no mysteries." Rather, there are so many mysteries that we hardly need to invent new ones.

There is no unified theory yet, but we certainly won't get one if we muck about with superstition and religion.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

 

[JaredJames]

Heh, I often try to chime in during brief work breaks and completely miss the train of the conversation. I hate it when that happens!

Ha, only just got that. This 4 hour train delay is putting a serious lag on my brain at the moment.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

There is nothing special about humans compared to the rest of life, but humans still spend a lot of time discussing it.

You and jj and I are just as human as everyone else, or you'd be speaking only when data analysis were required.

I understand, but do not sympathize with, your feelings that "there must be more."

I didn't say there was, I said humans spend a lot of time thinking about it. Because you and I don't does not change that.

 

[pftest]

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Ive seen this one before, but i don't think there is some mutually exclusive relation between the existence of math and the existence of a conscious being (aka god). For example, we are conscious beings and we do math, so that is an example we can extrapolate from. And if it were a fact that our bodies were governed by equations, that would not make us any less conscious. Equations by themselves are abstractions and necessarily dependant on a conscious being that can do math. So it is clear that the statement "material body X (for example the universe) behaves according to an equation" does not imply "material body X is not conscious and not influenced conscious forces".

If it were really so that an equation could describe the entire universe, then that seems to match perfectly with platonic idealism (the view that all reality consists of ideas), which is about as godly as can get.

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

There is a strange contradiction in this reasoning. On the one hand it is supposed that there is nothing special about being human, yet on the other hand it is supposed that human beings (and some animals), are the only things in the universe that have such delusions of self importance. In other words, by this very reasoning, there is something special about being human: having delusions of self importance, aka being conscious.

 

[Routaran]

I think the question of the existence of god or something else that fits that description is within the realm of science.

Take ether for example. At one point we beleived that this substance existed and was the medium in which light travelled. then we devised an experiment and tested to see if it was true and it wasnt. so we ended up modifying the definition of light to one which didnt require ether and as a result gained a better understanding of it.

now we don't have an explanation of how this universe came to be to test. if and when we do, then science is what will confirm or falsify the initial assumption because, as far as i know, we have no other objective way to describe and evaluate what we observe.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

i would suggest to the world that we all take a page out of science. admit when you are wrong and be willing to change what you think in light of evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would modify that statement a bit. Its not that there are "no mysteries." Rather, there are so many mysteries that we hardly need to invent new ones.

The belief in a God is based in large part on personal experiences. While the notion of a God may have been invented, belief requires more. People believe these things because they perceive that it improves their life when they do.

There is no unified theory yet, but we certainly won't get one if we muck about with superstition and religion.

And a TOE, if it ever comes, will come from once-in-a-generation mind. I doubt that church will get in the way. There is no cause and effect here. I dare say that military spending and social programs are a far greater threat to fundamental research, than religion.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Neither if you wish to believe in a God. My point was that we don't know that existence can be fully explained. You would have us think it can. There are even scientists who have seemingly given up on a TOE.

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

Despite my own history with Flex, I didn't perceive any insult, personal or otherwise here. I thought he was simply tabling a purely intellectual challenge-experiment. Maybe I didn't get the import of the backstory in that discussion though.

 

[FlexGunship]

The belief in a God is based in large part on personal experiences. While the notion of a God may have been invented, belief requires more. People believe these things because they perceive that it improves their life when they do.

Can't argue with that. Reasonable. I would even add that people believe these things because they perceive that it increases their understanding of their experiences.

And a TOE, if it ever comes, will come from once-in-a-generation mind. I doubt that church will get in the way. There is no cause and effect here. I dare say that military spending and social programs are a far greater threat to fundamental research, than religion.

Hmm, we could probably agree on that. I suppose the discovery of it wouldn't be hampered, but widespread adopting (sic. Evolution) might be slowed.

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

Yikes! No insult intended. I was just trying to get the question out and into the field of play while (hopefully) dodging some of the detail-picking that happens.

Send me a PM with instructions on how you'd like it edited.

 

[FlexGunship]

Despite my own history with Flex, I didn't perceive any insult, personal or otherwise here. I thought he was simply tabling a purely intellectual challenge-experiment. Maybe I didn't get the import of the backstory in that discussion though.

Yes, this. No backstory intended or existing (as far as I know). I've been trying to keep clean. Maybe I genuinely don't understand the posting rules.

Glad to admit I first joined this party like a pirate swinging on a chandeleir, but I fancied myself to have evolved into a welcome guest at this dinner lately.

 

[disregardthat]

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

You can disprove the existence of logically impossible things. By virtue of being logically impossible they cannot exist. A thing may is logically impossible if its properties contradict each other, for example a rock with a weight and volume which does not correspond to its density. This is a priori impossible, since density is defined as the ratio between weight and volume.

 

[JaredJames]

You can disprove the existence of logically impossible things. By virtue of being logically impossible they cannot exist. A thing may is logically impossible if its properties contradict each other, for example a rock with a weight and volume which does not correspond to its density. This is a priori impossible, since density is defined as the ratio between weight and volume.

Mass, not weight. The weight of an object is different on the Earth and the Moon, yet the density / mass / volume of an object will remain constant.

Sorry to be picky, but it's a common thing I see and it bugs the hell out of me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can't argue with that. Reasonable. I would even add that people believe these things because they perceive that it increases their understanding of their experiences.



Hmm, we could probably agree on that. I suppose the discovery of it wouldn't be hampered, but widespread adopting (sic. Evolution) might be slowed.



Yikes! No insult intended. I was just trying to get the question out and into the field of play while (hopefully) dodging some of the detail-picking that happens.

Send me a PM with instructions on how you'd like it edited.

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

This implies that I would do otherwise without your motivations. As I said, your attitude is the problem. No one needs you to tell them to be honest or not to dodge the question. Just make your points and leave out the personal commentary. This is your last warning.

I have already cut you more slack than I should, or normally would, because you obviously have a lot to contribute. But personal commentary of this nature is strickly forbidden. Never make it personal. That's as plain as I know how to say it.

 

[FlexGunship]

Never make it personal. That's as plain as I know how to say it.

Okay. Ill edit the post. I didn't mean "you" as a specific person. Just the "you" that refers to any reader.

I will change it to "one" for added clarity.

EDIT: I couldn't edit that post for some reason. There might be a limit on how old it can be. Sorry for the delay. I had to find a computer. I'm still traveling and the mobile version of this site doesn't seem to allow editing.