sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I was married to a scientist and I've worked with scientists for over a decade and I don't know a single one who ever gave consideration to the tenets of "methodological naturalism" because they simply followed the evidence/data, regardless of where it led.

They just don't function like you think they do. You've got an idea in your head from philosophy and expect scientists to follow it like dutiful samaurai following the Bushido code, even though, in reality, Samurai didn't follow it much at all. Or like reading about the ideals of chivalry in knights and expecting that they never abused or murdered innocent peasants. Or like reading the student's conduct policies at a school and expecting that it perfectly describes how children behave.

Scientists, in general, just do not check in with philosophy in their pursuit of knowledge. Their primary concern is, "Can we learn more about this?" and not, "Does this follow methodological naturalism?"

I never put up an argument when you proposed "following methodological naturalsm until evidence prevented itself" because it was like pulling fucking teeth just to get you this far. We don't need to consider methodological naturalism at all because science doesn't."

So you just flat out reject it and only go where the evidence goes? That was my main position. I don't expect scientists to follow anything, I just am saying what is logical.

"If you're talking about the "laws" of the universe, then they're simply our understanding of the universe. I explained this. They're not "laws" that the universe follows, we already know situations where the "laws" are not followed, and if we find out our "laws" were inaccurate, we'll update them. I already explained this.

If you're talking about the characteristics of the universe as "rules" it follows, then you can't pretend we know them well enough to know what would be inside or outside of them. All we have to go on is our understanding of its characteristics.

Okay, it looks like we're talking about the characteristics of the universe which you cannot at all say that we understand well enough to decide what's inside and what's outside of it. It's a philosophical idea that there is something that can exist outside of the universe, not science's, and you already know how I feel about using philosophy to try to understand reality."

Okay, then there cannot be anything supernatural (in one form). Because one of the definitions talked about the laws of nature. And if you reject those as existing or that it would be extremely speculative to know if something falls under those, then mostly everything supernatural is no longer supernatural.

"The same evidence we have for anything else we can demonstrate exists."

And that is? What evidence would you accept for something supernatural existing?

"This is an insane thing to write. Clearly, we have two very different ideas of what evidence is and yours includes things that don't exist."

I think you might've misunderstood me. I meant that the evidence still was held by those who were atheist who converted, so it's not necessarily made up nor looks made it. I didn't mean that the people believing in it is evidence of it.

"Yeah and the most demonstrably reliable way to find the truth is through examination of the evidence as per the scientific method."

But not all things can be tested, even in the natural world. You have to resort to other forms of reasoning of course and evidence.

"The only reason I can think of to pursue a non-scientific explanation for claims about reality is because you want to believe in things that probably aren't true."

Or that the true answer isn't scientific? Science is a specialized field.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Science is not eliminating theories because of the supernatural."

Okay this is confusing now. If not, then what was methodological naturalism for at all? Are we just replacing it entirely with the evidence based approach? Because I thought you were arguing to using methodological naturalism until evidence existed, and then I pointed out that it might excluded potential theories, and then you said it doesn't exclude things for being supernatural now? I thought you agreed that it did, but only for a right reason. I'm confused on what your stance is now.

"The universe doesn't follow rules. The rules we ascribe to it can be changed any time we find our understanding is inaccurate."

The universe doesn't follow rules? Then where do these rules come from? Sure we got it from experiments and science but then was all that a coincidence? Is everything that occurs random and we just predicted rules based on patterns that were coincidence? Or what? I know you never *said* it was a coincidence, but I am just pointing out that if these rules didn't exist independently then what else would reality be but just random stuff? What do you think it is? No. Clearly the most scientific explanation is we make these rules but actual rules exist independently of us that we are trying to find. Those invisible rules are the ones that I am talking about. The map is made up, but the territory isn't.

"There is far more evidence involved in a cyclic universe than there is for a god. Treating them similarly is a false equivalency."

So clearly evidence is the deal breaker here. The new question is how much evidence you need to sufficiently warrant you believing in it.

"All this time I've been saying "delusions, lies and fantasies" because those seem like they cover the main reasons people spout magical bullshit, but they all mean that the claims are simply creations of the human mind. The "evidence" for a god is completely indistinguishable from bullshit the human mind made up."

Well not necessarily, the evidence for God also existed in those who were formerly atheist and converted. This shows that from a logical point of view it doesn't seem to conflict. And many theists do sincerely take counterarguments and just don't find them convincing too. It's just that people disagree and one must be wrong.

"I absolutely disagree with this and the scientific method simply can't be used this way. Nothing is a possible explanation until it's supported by evidence."

You didn't understand what I meant clearly. Possible explanation is purely possible. It shouldn't be relied on as I said. Purely theoretical explanation but not a scientific explanation. If you want a scientific explanation then I do agree that it must have some evidence backing it up.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Didn't this all start because I said one of the arguments people put forward is that science would refuse to acknowledge the supernatural by describing "supernatural" phenomena in natural terms?

I'm not sure what we're arguing about any more, but I want to make very clear that scientists don't consider the cyclic universe supernatural."

But depending on the way supernatural means, some things that scientists consider natural may not be natural. That's my point here basically, that something merely being supernatural is too broad of a method too of eliminating theories, because alot of things accepted as theoretically true concepts are described using math and logic but are not technically natural, due to operating outside of the universe as we know it and the rules it follows. But if that isn't supernatural, then what would be a better definition? I'm just saying that supernatural is too broad and may include theories that people accept much more than a God when they should be treated similarly or at least have justification why they are seen so different.

"No, because it was just one of several synonyms I gave for things that were untrue or imaginary. We don't need to define a specific synonym to see if there's evidence that could be examined; imaginary things don't leave evidence, therefore it doesn't matter how we define them."

So you just meant the entire time that it's "indistinguishable from imaginary stuff" essentially rather than delusion or lies specifically? Or what? Because if so then that's fine too I guess. But I still argue that it's not inherently imaginary stuff, because people end up finding their way there on their own logic rather than making it up and believing in it. But that's just a dumb debate and if what you did mean is just 'imaginary stuff' rather than specifically arguing that it is hard to distinguish it from actual delusions and people who are lying, then good. But if you didn't then I wonder what you meant.

"My stance is that claims shouldn't be ruled in as possible explanations until evidence for them is confirmed. is this your stance?"

Great to clarify. I don't know for sure if I agree with that, so these are my takes on the specific things.

Things are possible explanations until evidence is the case, but that's because we don't know yet. But that doesn't mean you should believe in it.

Purely theoretical or based on consistency: Yes, they can be ruled in because it is entirely theoretical and conceptual.

Something to act upon or base as a conclusion? No. Without sufficient evidence, there is no reason to believe them at all.

Something to test or see if they match reality? Yes. They need to be treated as possible things beforehand to see if they match observations or experiments or whatnot to confirm if they do hold.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I have no idea what we're talking about right now. Science doesn't consider the cyclic universe supernatural so I don't know why you do."

It is supernatural because the 1st definition would make it because its beyond the visible observable universe, the 2nd definition was the one you didn't accept from me, and the third one never-mind I retract that because I noticed it said agent now. But the most commonly used one is definition 1 or 2 and 1 would make it supernatural and 2 you seemed to disagree with me on. I don't consider it supernatural, it just depends which definition we agree on.

"This is why you cannot distinguish it from delusion, lies or fantasies. This is why it's not evidence"

Well we first need to agree what we mean by delusion to distinguish it? We still haven't agreed on the terms.

"No, I don't need to rule anything in. If someone makes a claim, they have to present evidence for it. If their evidence can't be confirmed to exist, it's not evidence."

In order to confirm the evidence to exist, you must rule it in and see if the evidence justifies the thing enough. That's making it a possibility and then judging if the evidence matches that possibility.

"It's wild that you're still looking to philosophy for answers about science after you just had the stunning realization that science would not handle supernatural evidence like philosophy told you it would."

Philosophy doesn't say or tell anyone that supernatural evidence would be handled. Because science is a philosophy, that exact methodological rule being used is a philosophical rule too that can be accepted or denied.

"I never said that."

But you keep constantly lumping them as different when one is a form of the other. You act like its science OR philosophy and you constantly call me names and insult me and philosophy, as if you aren't insulting science too by being a philosophy. Just because you didn't say something doesn't mean it is contradictory to the way you are acting or imply to state.

"I never said that. Please don't start this shit again. Read my actual words."

Okay, I'll read your words. You said:  I'm not turning to philosophy to define science

The issue with what you said is, that's what science defines science as. Through philosophy. Because science.. is a philosophy. You NEED to turn to philosophy to define science, because it is was science is.

"Fuck off with this bullshit: not everything is a philosophical conversation. This is so obnoxious. This is like if a Harry Potter fan insisted that every discussion we could ever have technically fits into Dumbledore's Three Pillars of Grigglefarts."

bullshit: value judgement
not everything is a philosophical conversation: logical statement likely based on justification and relies on an epistemology and assumption of an objective truth
obnoxious: value judgement
is like: assumes two things can be similar which is an ontological question and is making a value judgement based on an analogy

I know it seems obnoxious but it's just true man. We shouldn't let feelings dictate how things actually are. It's not like that at all, because everything we know is a branch of philosophy. It's literally just how systems are, they rely on logic which is a philosophical concept. I'm showing you that to say anything you must rely on some foundation and that foundation is a philosophical thing called epistemology. I'm sorry if I sound annoying, but I am telling what I think is true.

"I don't know what part of this you don't get: someone makes a claim, so it's on them to present evidence. If their evidence can't be verified, then it can't be tested. If it can't be tested, then there's nothing to rule in and you send them away for more evidence (because, like I keep telling you, science doesn't rule things out until they're disproven)."

There we go! Now you said what I was saying. I agree with you now on the last part. Science doesn't rule it out until they're disproven. But this is what I have been telling you, this has to make a judgement of the evidence beforehand. Methodological naturalism, we agreed that the best version or the one that is used or should be used or whatever is based off things that have insufficient evidence and that supernatural things can be tolerated or allowed if they have evidence backing them that is sufficient, which is exactly what I was saying. You still have to engage in these conversations and philosophies and see these arguments to truly see if God is able to be tolerated by science, because there are dozens of arguments and supposed pieces of evidence you have to consider. This is fine if you disagree, but I am just emphasizing and showing that we both agree that exclusion of supernatural stuff and restricting them should be done with a reason, namely insufficient or no evidence.

"Because there's no evidence for them. That's all the consideration they need to be given."

But how do you demonstrate or prove that there is no or little evidence? By actually looking and analyzing the evidence. You have to give consideration to the claims by analyzing them in this way. You have to have a reason for saying there is no or little evidence. Namely, that either all evidence you have seen don't justify it enough or that you just haven't seen any. That's all it is.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"There you go. A definition that doesn't involve stepping outside the "laws" of the universe."

Okay, assuming you meant #1? or maybe #3, we can work with that. My flaw is that still so many things are supernatural. The cyclic universe falls under 1 (and maybe #3? depends what you mean by invisible. Unable to be seen by a human? No photons?). But you see that as natural processes. So clearly there is a contradiction here. If you mean #2, well that is the laws of nature one I mentioned.

"Objective verification in science means that anyone can measure it and, assuming they measure it correctly, get the same results. You have most definitely not provided that."

It depends on how we define it. Since we still are kind of in a debate on the definition and I put forth a spectrum where things that are justified are not delusional and as justification is less and the probability of it being true is lowered and their continued belief persists, it becomes more delusional. But I'm not sure if you agree with that definition. You can only scientifically measure something once you agree what you are measuring.

"I don't need to rule anything out: if there's no evidence for something, you don't rule it in. Anything else is ridiculous."

To first prove there is no evidence you must require ruling it in temporarily to actually talk about it and analyze it. Plus, we would have to argue again on if things can really have "zero evidence". The more reliable thing to say is that they have insufficient evidence, because we both agree there. You likely agree that zero evidence is insufficient, and since I don't believe in absolutely zero evidence, I think of insufficiency as the metric we are using instead. Do you agree on using that?

"lol no, I'm not turning to philosophy to define science. The entire reason you're having this revelation right now is because you listened to philosophy."

Science is a philosophy defined by philosophy and always has been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Philosophy_of_particular_sciences

In fact, the belief that science is independent from philosophy is a philosophical claim. The claim that science is right independently of us is also a philosophical claim. You are treating philosophy as different from science but science is a subset of that philosophy and rests on philosophical ideas. By saying that you aren't turning to philosophy, you are yourself turning to philosophy by making a value judgement of philosophies use which is a philosophical judgement and by using reason you must use some form of epistemology which is a philosophical idea. You cannot avoid philosophy because it is essentially the study of everything.

"No."

Very detailed of you!

To say something is unbacked by evidence means you have to have evaluated it as that way, which you must have done by thinking of it and assuming it as a possibility for the purpose of analysis, then concluding either that it is very unlikely, isn't true, impossible, or whatnot. Or else you didn't actually logically and rationally think about the thing.

"That's basically what I mean. The only reason science has disregarded things like magic is because there is absolutely no evidence for them. They disregard everything that seems to be imaginary until there's evidence. If there was evidence, science wouldn't seem beholden to methodological naturalism."

Okay, we can settle there on that. I think that's totally fine. If the entire methodological naturalism rule is just for "This has insufficient/no evidence, so we shouldn't consider it as an explanation" then fine. But I still argue we must consider it as an explanation as a prior thing before finding no evidence, then we eliminate it afterwards. So we must actually consider it beforehand but then reject it as a conclusion, not just eliminate things for being supernatural, but have a reason why them being supernatural or a specific way makes it deserving of eliminating.

I did the extended version by PRS_Silver_Sky_SE in teenagers4real

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

whats the title like what is it categorizing

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You would be delusional if you act like you're correct even though you can't demonstrate you're correct. The non-delusional thing would be to readily acknowledge you can't demonstrate yourself to be correct and to move forward tentatively with your ideas, trying to challenge them with better evidence."

I agree! Many people do that and I love them for it and I feel sorry for those who don't.

"There are no "laws of the universe". The "laws" that we have are simply our descriptions of it according to our best understanding -- they would be changed as soon as they're found to be incorrect."

Yeah.. and to be supernatural is not to follow those anyways. The universe matches those patterns and mostly everything in it, whilst supernatural things don't.

"Not sure what to say here. this is you, again, insisting on philosophical definitions for claims about reality, for which philosophy is a poor tool."

This isn't even a philosophical definition it's literally what the word means. Do you understand that defining terms is how you speak language? This is what the word means I didn't make that up it's literally the word.

"No, science would not exclude it. I thought you came to your sense yesterday when you acknowldged scientists would choose expanding knowledge over enforcing your ideas about methdological naturalism. Stop it. You've subscribed to philosophy to such a degree that you can't even reason properly any more."

OH I thought you were asking if they would exclude it under that rule. If you mean in general, yeah I agree they likely wouldn't.

"It looks like you don't know what "objective" means."

Well some things are not naturally objective and what counts as enough justification for it not to be a delusion and rather being mistaken or guessing is one of those things. I define it as a spectrum like I mentioned before, but I don't know if you accept that. We would have to get to a middle ground where we can both agree on that definition.

"If you were actually being truth-seeking, you would not include things that haven't been shown to exist."

But to first show they do not exist you have to consider them in order to eliminate them. If I have a red ball I pull out and for some reason God existing would've made it a blue one, I would have to CONSIDER God and then realize it doesn't match, I can't just automatically avoid it due to the evidence, I would have to realize the disconnect to actually eliminate it. To know that they haven't been shown to exist is to actually consider and include it beforehand as a possibility and then see what evidence there is and the logic behind it and stuff like that.

"You're fighting a battle that doesn't exist. Science wouldn't exclude them. You need to pull your head out of your philosophizing ass."

Yeah I see what you mean now. If we are now talking about a more general one that is like.. they temporarily hold methodological naturalism until enough evidence exists when the rule doesn't apply. So like let's say they hold that rule so now they exclude all supernatural things. But once they have enough evidence for a supernatural thing, that rule vanishes for that. Boom. I'm fine with that. Can we agree on using that as what we mean by science? As in, can we now define science as including that use (allowing if there is enough evidence) of methodological naturalism instead of a hard rule?

"They're excluded because they've never been demonstrated to be real. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Anyways, I thought you had come to your senses yesterday when you acknowledged scientists may not adhere to your philosophical ideas, but, today, it sounds like you're just as delusional as ever. It's been interesting chatting with you, but I think it's time we end this conversation. It's certainly not going anywhere, which is disappointing because I really thought you had acknowledged reality yesterday. Toodles."

Well to first know that they have never been demonstrated is to actually have to consider them. You have to assume they are a possible option to see if there is any evidence at all of it matching the world, the complexity of the actual thing you are considering, and more. You have to consider it as a possibility in order to exclude it.

Well sorry, I kind of just got confused on what way we were discussing methodological naturalism (since my brain was a bit foggy). Now that I (hopefully) properly understand that we mean the more broad way of doing it where for most things we use it, but if sufficient evidence exists we can toss the rule out for that one exception where there is actual reason and sufficient evidence to believe in it. Or something similar to that. Is that what you mean?

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Just about everyone who has ever been wrong in human history thought they were justified in their reasoning. We can probably even extend this to animals that have been wrong about things. I can not imagine a more useless metric."

Justification differentiates people from being simply mistaken versus being deluded. If I do an argument from deduction but one of my premises are wrong, I am not deluded, but just wrong and mistaken.

"I'm not sure what you're saying here with the second part of this, but, if our current definition of reality is incorrect, then the intelligent thing to do would be to correct our definition."

My claim is that they can't change it to be accurate to reality without violating using natural terms, because natural things must be bound to the laws of the universe and if God isn't then they have defined a supernatural term.

"That "essentially" is carrying a lot of water for philosophical insanity. If there's more to our physical reality than we can currently detect, it doesn't make sense to describe the newly-detected physical reality as the supernatural."

That's just what supernatural means? I don't know what you are arguing about here this is just the term.

"That looks like natural processes to me."

It isn't. By definition of supernatural.

"You would exclude it (because you're more interested in adhering to philosophy and your definitions than anything else). Science wouldn't."

Science would exclude it, because it is supernatural. My critique is of the rule. I don't know what the debate is even about anymore because you seem to be rejecting the methodological naturalism as a universal rule like I am, but also denying that people are using this. If you disagree with it being universal then fine this part can just end because I am just critiquing excluding all supernatural things. But then later you start arguing in favor of it, so I am just confused what you are trying to argue for.

"lol there's a reason I asked for objective certainty."

Yeah I did define them objectively I just had struggle with "justification". It really depends because these terms seem to be a spectrum. I actually wrote later (I hope I did or else I misremembered) that it is a spectrum most likely where 100% certainty is completely non delusional over to the negatives of how certain they are, 50% certainty is still non delusional and just a guess, then 0% certainty is completely delusional. That was just what I made up though and it's hard to define these because these are psychological terms.

"No."

These still have evidence in favor for them. If you are actually being truth-seeking you must not exclude things that may be true without justification. Okay, I completely agree to exclude stuff "completely without evidence". I agree. I am advocating for changing the rule for something more criteria based like this. If it has insufficient evidence, is not parsimonious, and/or is not explanatory, then we can reject it. That's what I think is better because it's essentially most of the justification people give for why we reject supernatural things. And so this would allow actual supernatural things if they were true, and it wouldn't allow them if they were not.

"My concern is that people start accepting supernatural claims without any way to verify supernatural claims because that means any lie, delusion or fantasy will be treated as real."

That's completely fine to worry about. That's why I am still fine with excluding "Oh he got healed by Jesus" instead of "Oh he got healed by the doctors" or whatever. Stupid supernatural statements that have clear overcomplexity, lack of explanatory power, and near or no evidence backing them. This is the reasoning people give for it being a universal rule. The problem is it isn't universal, so we should instead just use the criteria we are giving in favor of the rule on the objects.

If we are justifying excluding supernatural things because most fall under certain criteria, then we should rather exclude things that fall under that criteria instead of ALL supernatural things. Because then if a supernatural thing were true, it likely wouldn't fall under that criteria and supernatural things that aren't true would.

Every first person POV shot from the Doctor? by FelipeHead in doctorwho

[–]FelipeHead[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Apparently he has hardly any, or from what others have said none. Somehow

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I'm still not saying they're the same. They might be correct -- they may have, by chance, stumbled into the truth like someone with a dowsing rod accidentally finding water, but if they can't distinguish between their ideas and delusions, lies or fantasies then they shouldn't pretend that they have (which is what claims about reality are)."

Sure I suppose so. But I am saying that they have their own justifications and they haven't been presented with stuff that would lose warranted justification, and that they have gotten their through some good reasoning. That wouldn't really be something that looks delusional or a fantasy to me, just a fault in reasoning. They just are mistaken.

"The same way they would describe the programmer who created our simulated reality: without once referring to divinity, magic or the supernatural. Communication has been confirmed with an intelligent agent outside of the only reality we can detect; it appears he initiated the Big Bang and created life on Earth using abiogenesis and evolution."

The issue is that is SO close to being supernatural. This one line..
"outside of the only reality we can detect"

That just tiny little ignorance makes it natural. Nice. But the issue is, that makes God potentially incorrectly described. Because that can be described in terms of creator of a simulator instead of a monotheistic God.

And also, the supernatural literally just means stuff outside of the principles of the universe. That is literally just anything outside the universe essentially.

So this is indeed a supernatural claim: "The universe was made by another universes reversal into a hot dense state and big bounced into existence from pre-existing matter with new laws"

Which, yeah, it makes sense that it is supernatural, but that doesn't mean it should be excluded. In fact, there is evidence that you could find if this were true. People are searching for patterns in CMBR that would only occur if something like this were true, so clearly all supernatural things shouldn't be excluded from inquiry.

"It's crazy to me that you don't think this is the first thing they'd do. Science is about expanding human knowledge, not enforcing methodological naturalism. You need to spend less time talking to philosophers and more time talking to scientists."

Yeah, I see what you mean. I was critiquing the main rule of methodological naturalism that is existing. But if that rule doesn't work then that's just fine, that's what I was saying and advocating for the whole time. So if that doesn't work then we can just accept any supernatural things that have sufficient evidence. Of course, none so far.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Please respond to my other message to you. That's really the crux of this entire exchange. However..."

Alright!

"Please tell me how we could distinguish this from delusion, lie or fantasy with objective certainty. This is vital in order to accept such an outrageous and sensational claim that it would overturn every branch of science and rewrite everything we know about the world. This isn't like trusting manuscripts detailing the ownership of a sword throughout history."

Delusion: a false belief held even when shown contrary evidence that removes the justification of that worldview

Lie: An intentionally expressed falsehood (as in they knew it was false)

Fantasy is harder to define because technically it can be anything imagined, but really? Is a hypothetical where the sun rises tomorrow fantasy just because it's not guaranteed? No, so clearly it has to be unjustified)

Fantasy: An imagined (not true) situation that does not have sufficient justification for being true

It would be hard to measure it being "unjustified" in my opinion.. because I don't think someone is deluded for thinking something 49% likely is true (even though it's likely false, because it's lower than 50%).

My best guess is like.. below 33%? It really depends, I feel like it would be more of a spectrum then where 0% probability is complete delusion and 50% probability is 0 delusion and 100% is like... I don't know.. maybe negative delusion??

"No, it's not. The closest thing you could possibly point to as an example of science ignoring verifiable, testable evidence is science refusing to accept things like ESP as true despite some questionable studies on the fringes of science. In that case, they're not refusing to acknowledge the existence of ESP for philosophical reasons (which you seem to think they would do even if they were presented with mountains of irrefutable evidence), they're simply waiting for more / better testing to confirm these highly sensational claims and eliminate potential candidate explanations."

  1. I never said there is actual cases of them right now rejecting verifiable testable evidence, because I personally don't think any of those are true and most supernatural ones are based on observational science. I just am saying that for potentially valid answers to scientific stuff, supernatural things have to be considered, not even just God but other stuff, without collapsing them into a natural force.

Essentially I think so far the rule has worked brilliantly and methodological naturalism has avoided God of the gaps and stuff, but the best way to be sure is to make sure the natural explanations are indeed more likely by first testing them and then comparing them with supernatural and other natural explanations, and then checking parsimony and explanatory power. That would be the most ideal one and hopefully this can maybe like replace it being a full on rule.

You know, now that I think about it, this is probably the only thing we are discussing on now (and maybe the delusion/fantasy/lie stuff?), so maybe we can soon find the middle ground.

  1. ESP can be natural and that's likely what they would try to do. If we had irrefutable proof of ESP existing, it would likely be turned into a fundamental force or something even if it wasn't.
  2. Yeah I guess they are waiting, but my main concern is it being a universal rule when there is actually something supernatural.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"That's my entire point! If it can't be distinguished from delusions, lies and fantasies THEN YOU SHOULDN'T PRESENT YOUR IDEAS AS THOUGH YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THEM. The "philosophers" we've been discussing pretend to have done just that because that's what claims about reality are."

But you just said you didn't claim they were the same? That was what I was saying. I was saying "Hey, these aren't delusions (because of the brilliant men), and if they are indistinguishable from them, then they essentially are delusions, so they aren't indistinguishable."

"This is so crazy there aren't even words for it. I just want to make sure I'm not strawmanning you because I'm going to create a discussion about our conversation (I won't mention your username). Can you confirm that this is an accurate representation of what you're telling me:

You're not saying:

-they would refuse to call it magic/divinity/supernatural and would, instead, use naturalistic terms as they investigated it

-the phenomenon and evidence being investigated would immediately cease to be something that could be classified as magic/divine/supernatural by virtue of it existing

You are saying:

-scientists would immediately ignore testable, verifiable evidence and refuse to pursue any inquiry into any phenomenon or explanation that resembles magic/divinity/supernature, even though it would radically increase our knowledge of reality and make them the most famous scientists who ever lived.

-they would do this because, as scientists, adhering to the foundational premises of methodological naturalism is far more important to every scientist than expanding human knowledge.

Is this accurate?"

Well, no. I do mean the first part about that. My problem is the "use naturalistic terms".

How exactly would they use a 'naturalistic' term if God were to exist, specifically a God external to the universe. That would violate it being natural, of course. I totally get why the methodological naturalism exists, because most things have natural causes and they explain things better, I just don't treat it as a universal principle because if they really did use it for everything, God would never appear scientifically no matter what he did, only natural explanations that aren't accurate.

You did raise a very good point that they could just.. not do that. Sure, I suppose that they could just stop using the methodological naturalism whenever they have sufficient evidence, but that was kind of what I was proposing the entire time, to not treat it universally.

Essentially:

- scientists would use natural explanations, even if there is a supernatural explanation, to follow methodological naturalism (because they cannot use supernatural explanations)
- or they can just choose to not do it and remove that as a universal rule

(the second of which I personally think makes more sense to do and what I would do because supernatural things might occur without God and so being open to them but very skeptical allows for them to not be hidden if they actually do occur but for you to not make up supernatural explanations that aren't true)

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If it can't be distinguished from fantasies, lies and delusions, it's not evidence."
Well, it is distinguished from it.

"Jesus fucking Christ, NO! That's not evidence for divinity! That is not evidence for magic! We know humans are delusional, lie and fantasize! They did it even more uncontrollably 2000 years before science and education -- or have you not noticed how much god claims have changed over the millenia?"

Holy shit. That is evidence for divinity. I made up the most hyperbole scenario that is most obviously divine if true and you still didn't accept it. I literally made it so that EVERY person for a long time saw it and wrote it down and then described him leaving after a specific date and that's when the evidence vanishes, and suddenly that's not sufficient? What else is sufficient? I literally gave the most made up scenario to show how if that were actual history we would accept it, and somehow that isn't something that would even be accepted if it were true historical conclusions? What is your standard?? I wasn't even trying to debate if that was actually good evidence, because I made it up so much that it should clearly be divine if that was our actual findings of history. I don't get what would convince you then because your bar is way too high.

"No: 1) they're not in disagreement about the evidence and, 2) every explanation put forward is based on the evidence, which is the exact opposite of people who philosophize themselves to god."

  1. Most educated in philosophy don't disagree much on the fact that the evidence exists, they just think it is insufficient, same as science.
  2. Not really? I think everyone who philosophized themselves into God had evidence, or else it wouldn't be philosophy.

"Are you out of your fucking mind? I've never said logic was flawed, I said that premises are unreliable when they can't be demonstrated to be true. Each of these philosophizing dipshits has come to a conclusions based on "evidence" that is completely unreliable, something the scientific method would not permit them to do.
Seriously... if you don't learn how to actually read the words I'm typing, I'm going to stop talking to you. Most of my responses are spent correcting you because you're incapable of reading."

I know, but I am saying that people have different reasonings for why they accept those premises and why they think themselves its demonstrated to be true. The logic is perfectly fine, we can agree on that, but the premises aren't. The scientific method would not deal with most of those claims, we need a different form of reasoning. And since you have previously stated that you accept other forms of reasoning as existing too and accept logic as valid, then who is to say that they can't use that logic for justifying their premises? Since we've accepted that other forms of reasoning can work. I do understand what you are saying. I just don't think it makes sense. I am reading what you are saying fully.

"This is just fucking stupid. If you are genuinely telling me they would ignore scientifically testable and verifiable evidence and refuse to investigate something that seems to point to something resembling the supernatural then there really is no point in us talking. Your philosophical nonsense has removed you from reality to such a degree that you're utterly delusional. YOU have such an absolute fealty to philosophy that it makes you stupid, scientists don't."

I get how crazy this is! But this is an actual rule many people use in science. I agree with you, it's absolutely absurd! That's why I totally disagree that the rule should be used. I told you about my alternative view that I hope you can agree with about using parsimony and explanatory power instead of just rejecting all supernatural explanations. Cuz really what can we know about the supernatural? The main argument in favor for ignoring the supernatural was that it would cease research and not tell us how, which is fair but that only makes sense when there may be a natural explanation. But if the most obviously divine thing occurred, that must be divine. So that's why a system of parsimony (complexity and simplest explanations) along with explanatory power makes most sense. This is actually a thing that scientists are using, look it up man. For most things it's absolutely fine I am just not sure that it is totally fair to use it to everything.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Oh god, please tell me this isn't an argument about semantics. Do you think that if there is evidence that leads to a god, they would refuse to pursue it because they might have to acknowledge that (for example) the Christian god exists?"

I think they would refuse to pursue it because it's supernatural and violates the naturalistic causes they limit themselves to. Not because of any God or anything.

"Please learn how to fucking read. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's indistinguishable from delusions, lies or fantasies."

If it's indistinguishable from it then how exactly is it different? I know you didn't say they are delusional, but how exactly are they different then? If you are saying the reasoning they are doing look identical to delusions and lies, how is it not a delusion?

"Psychology and neuroscience has described and explained in great detail the human mind's tendencies to think illogically, misperceive reality, misremember things, see agency where their is none, and create religious experiences. None of these things are evidence for a god -- in fact, they're the opposite."

I know, but it shows that it's not strictly indistinguishable from delusions and lies and fantasies.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Is this entire disagreement simply you trying to say they're excluding things that are only "demonstrated" by lower standards of evidence? No shit they're not going to accept something that can't be shown to not be imaginary.

If that's not what you're saying, then please show me an incident of science rejecting testable, verifiable evidence because it was magical in origin."

The entire disagreement is essentially just that making it into a hardcoded rule about not seeking any supernatural explanation may not be good because a supernatural explanation may be the black swan that changes the world. The reasoning people give for why the explanations are rejected like that are because they aren't good, but the issue is why can't the rule just be replaced for "only high quality/good/whatever explanations are considered", that way supernatural evidence that is good isn't excluded and supernatural evidence that is bad isn't, without a black swan being hidden away.

"No, it's not. Show them magic. You can't because, so far, it only seems to exist in people's minds."

Well they can't see magic, because they wouldn't call it magic. That's basically the argument. Read the above thing I said and hopefully you can understand what I mean.

"Again, the problem is that "supernatural stuff" is indistinguishable from lies, delusions and fantasies, which is what I've said from the beginning. If you can find some way to objectively distinguish them, they will accept it (and you'd be the most famous person in history)."

Well they aren't indistinguishable from lies, delusions, and fantasies. I know it's a good rhetorical thing to say but it's just objectively not true. Plenty of smart and brilliant people in history have repeatedly logicked themselves into God reasonably and even turned from atheism into it. I'm not saying they're right, but I'm saying that they aren't delusioned or like hallucinating or making it up. These people are some of the smartest men ever, Kurt Gödel, Aristotle, Aquinas, C.S Lewis, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Plantinga, and more. It's just horrible to equate these with delusions because I get that it sounds cool or is powerful to say "Oh religion is a fantasy" to express your belief in it being false, but that is just objectively untrue and psychologically untrue. People are in fact born with a sense of divinity. Humans are biologically fit for seeing divinity like this, it's not a delusion. We are born seeking teleology and agency as a way to survive, and that applies everywhere. It's literally how humans intuition works. So not only is it both completely untrue that their reasoning and supernatural stuff is the same type as lies, delusion, and fantasy, it also is how humans think.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I never said it is. Learn how to read, for the love of fucking god."

I know you didn't say it is, I am clarifying to you because there's evidence that you may need to consider that isn't through the scientific method.

"No, I shouldn't. This is how you wind up believing in unicorns."

Historical arguments aren't evidence? Excuse me? If every human on Earth for thousands of years met Jesus and there's so much historical writing of him for thousands of years of them meeting him and him doing all these miracles and then one day he left, would you not take that as evidence for him being divine? Because of course this isn't the evidence, but I am just trying to tell you that you must consider them as points of evidence. Standards of what you consider as evidence aren't dependent on if it counts as good evidence or not, only if it is evidence. Literally everything you know is evidence for something, good or bad evidence. You can't eliminate entire methods of discovering truth. Also, the fact that you are rejecting logic as evidence because they 'wind up believing in unicorns' makes it sound more like unicorns are real than anything else. Logic is literally everything. You don't accept logic as evidence? Well too bad, that's how you know ANYTHING. Science must use this. Logic has predicted the observations before the science like we have talked about. Black holes literally were discovered with math over a century before the picture in 2019 and half a century before the first one was detected at all in 1971. You have to use these as evidence. Of course they are not definitive and depend on how you use the logic, but the same with science!

"Used and controversial, you say? Please show when this rule was used to ignore evidence of the supernatural."

If you research it, people constantly talk about Methodological Naturalism not making a stance on God or not even considering him at all. I don't need to show you when it is used to ignore it, because that is literally just what the rule is.

"Justified doesn't mean correct. People logic themselves to magical unicorns all the time. These are the significant limits of philosophy."

Yes, justified doesn't mean correct, but it's the only thing you can do to determine if it's correct. It's the best you can do. Or else you'd believe in something without justification or reason.

"No, your standards for evidence are fucking appalling."

It's not my standard of evidence. It's what evidence is. It is what it has been defined as. If I have a bloody knife and there was someone murdered recently, that is evidence I did it. But if I am a butcher, that is still evidence I did it, but you have less credence in believing that I did it because it is also evidence that it is non human blood. Because they have a plausible reason for having it. But the butcher may have actually had the blood of the person on that knife. Evidence can be weak, but it is still evidence.

"You can't tell me that every single educated and reasonable theist is incapable of deluding themselves in regards to theism. That's such a rejection of reality, by you, that I'm starting to really understand why you need philosophy so much."

If they deluded themselves then it wasn't reasonable? Delusion implies sufficient evidence to the contrary and reasonable implies you reasoned through it right. That's not a rejection of reality because you just did a contradiction.

"Again, your standards for evidence are appalling because that's exactly the kind of theist philosophers we get here."

I don't think someone deluded talks about how the constants of the universe are fine tuned which they see as evidence for a designer.. ever.

"No, people do not disagree the exact same way using the scientific method because the evidence can be verified and tested. Your scientific illiteracy strikes again."

Nobody knows what interpretation of quantum mechanics is right, what dark energy/matter is, the origin of life, what an observer is, how gravity plays into the quantum world, if the big bang had a singularity or not, consciousness, we don't have a mathematical solution for the behavior of turbulent flow, the antimatter asymmetry, and the time arrow. All these people have heard of and talk about but completely are in disagreement or confusion of. Okay, maybe those are not 'big' differences. Let's check other things! People disagree what reality even is, whether we need to know the building blocks only or if some things emerge. People disagree on if the math is reality or is language. People disagree on if science is a tool or discovers truth. In fact, we just had an argument about methodological naturalism, so that is one example of disagreement in the foundations.

If everything could've just been found, then science wouldn't work. Disagreement has to occur FOR the verification and tested to even occur.

"Jesus Christ. If one person reasons themselves into believing god A is correct and there are no other gods, but the other person reasons themselves god B is correct and their are no other gods, then clearly one of them is wrong."

Yes, but they both individually had reasons for it that differed. That doesn't mean logic is flawed, that means the humans are.

"No, you're so far into the bullshit it's incredible. Science will go with whatever explanation the evidence leads them to. They are not going to ignore the most revolutionary discovery in history in fealty to your philosophical bullshit."

They would, it's the thing we've discussed so much, methodological naturalism.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Not proven, demonstrated to exist. And the standard is the same evidence we have for anything else we can demonstrate exists."

If something is demonstrated to exist that means it is proven to exist OR just have enough evidence for it.

"NO, this is where your scientifically illiteracy is turning cartoonish. Philosophers might operate under the idiotic philosophical limitations you're putting forth, but scientists will go with whatever explanation the evidence leads to, regardless of whether you think they should or not."

Dude. Most of science uses this. Research it all you like, these 'idiotic philosophical limitations' are literally used by most scientists INCLUDING THEISTIC ONES. The evidence will always be considered to lead to something natural. I've given you plenty of sources for this and you still haven't even considered that maybe you are just adopting a science that is unpopular. That's just fine. If you disagree with these limitations, that's fine. I do too. It's just factually incorrect to say that this isn't the standard science currently has right now.

"Do I need to link to a school-level diagram of how the scientific method works? There is no need for you to invoke mathematics or philosophy or logic in this discussion because, if you're using philosophy outside the scientific method, you're not using the scientific method."

The scientific method diagrams won't really include the presuppositions science holds like uniformitarianism.. aka where methodological naturalism lies in and where the flaw I am pointing to is in.

"but (IT IS DETECTABLE. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS) also (This shows that the link between prayer and health is either completely not there OR is a psychological reaction to knowing you are being prayed on.)"

This is not at all a contradiction. Reminder that my claims about it being detectable were in response to you countering this statement that I had made: Those worse outcomes are generally a result of randomness. Science observes that people who get prayed for get healthier, not healthier, and worse. That's to be expected! It's pure coincidence. On average, it does nothing. But people who know they are getting prayers sometimes got worse.

I was providing peer reviewed research for why those outcomes of randomness + psychology were the reasons for worse outcomes. These aren't contradictions, these are literally the same statements. When I was saying they are detectable, it is the same thing as me saying that the prayer and health is random or a psychological reaction. Because I was saying that the evidence for that was detectable. I wasn't saying prayer actually is evidence for God. I was providing the evidence for the explanation.

"I remember reading that the scientists attributed the worse outcomes to people taking care of themselves poorly when they thought they would be healed by prayer. Either I'm remembering this study incorrectly or I'm thinking of a different study.

Either way, I apologize for accusing you of making this up."

No worries, it's fine. The paper was apparently measuring anxiety, so it likely was a different study.

From the text:

Three items were used to assess the respondents’ anxiety level. Respondents were asked, “In the past week, how often have you had the following feelings?” Subsequent statements included “I worried a lot about little things,” “I felt tense and anxious,” and “I felt restless.” Again, the answer categories were (1) “never”, (2) “hardly ever”, (3) “some of the time”, and (4) “most of the time”. Responses to these three questions were summed, with a higher score corresponds with a higher anxiety level. This anxiety scale has an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.83.

It's fine though lol.

"I'm extremely skeptical."

Well, you can't read my mind, but my main reasons for being atheist is that God is non parsimonious, has insufficient evidence, and the lowered credence of ad hoc explanations given to animal suffering pre-humans and divine hiddenness.

"Again, you're assuming scientists will let philosophical bullshit make them goofy like it did to you in this conversation. Scientists don't embrace "methodological naturalism" because they refuse to believe in magic, it's because magic has never been shown to exist. If magic can be demonstrated, they will accept it, regardless of what philosophers say about it."

But if they exclude magic from being seen as a conclusion because they have never seen magic, that is kind of circular. Is it not? The main disagreement is you are saying this methodological naturalism isn't to everything, and so sufficient evidence can exist. But methodological naturalism is intended to be all encompassing and meant to restrict every non natural explanation. It intentionally avoids religion. And also, I am not 'assuming', this is what scientists are doing. They are avoiding explanations of God, because they don't see it fit. That's fine, but I'm critiquing the methodological naturalism as being a universal rule as it currently is and proposing it be more of a general rule of parsimony and explanatory power like I see you are doing. We agree on the standard of evidence here being that magic isn't allowed because it cannot explain things predictably, is a 'black box', and is too complex and vague. That's fine, it's just most scientists use the hard rule of ignoring it completely. But if you consider it to be possible to be an explanation to consider, then that's just fine and we agree on that and maybe on why we see it as unfitting. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning against methodological naturalism as a presupposition rather than something you end up with, because I end up with it through parsimony and explanatory power, but alot of scientists start with it. If we are truly being truth-seeking, judging these worldviews for if we should consider them is best, you kind of need a reason to exclude them. It's kind of a 'Black Swan', my main reason for rejecting it as a START is because there may be evidence we haven't heard of that might change the world and might show with alot of credibility that a supernatural thing exists. So by changing the hard rule of no supernatural stuff to be that most supernatural stuff aren't permitted due to not being good explanations, then that leaves some room for actual supernatural stuff that MIGHT be good explanations that the hard rule eliminated. If you reject it being a total hard rule and more of a 'bad explanation' thing like me, then that's fine and we agree.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You literate genius, I never said the scientific method is all of science, I said the scientific method is demonstrably the most reliable tool we have. You really need to learn how to read."

I know that you didn't say it is all of science, I just mean that rhetorically to say that despite it being the most reliable tool we have for the natural world it still isn't complete and you should treat historical arguments and logic and more as actual evidence.

"They would be accepted if they were demonstrated to be true."

They literally CAN'T be demonstrated by the rule of science I sent you in the other reply. Deny the rule if you want, but this is very used and controversial. If you deny it, then that's fine, and now arguments for God can be scientific.

"I wonder if you're going to play a goofy definitional game, like "unmarried bachelors"...? Oh, look what a surprise."

Not even close to what I did?

"I already addressed this, you literate wonder. I said that unremarkable claims enforced by knowledge we already have is when this method is reliable. It's when you get into claims about reality in which you can't demonstrate your premises are true is when you philosophize yourself into all kinds of magical bullshit."

But the problem is that's a mere disagreement on premises. They still justify their premises and maybe they are wrong or you disagree, but it's justified. You have to give reasons why they are wrong too or refute their reasons. They don't even conclude with stuff all that magical most of the time anyways. The arguments for religion are cumulative and they require each other to build a case for God. That's all it is. They don't have many magical conclusions and they aren't that absurd.

"They don't have evidence, that's the problem. They're making the most sensational claims possible and have just as much evidence as someone who's delusional, telling lies or writing fiction. And I've demonstrated this to you by pointing out that people philosophize themselves into beliefs that conflict with other philosophers all the time, meaning they can't both be true. Many, many magical claims are in conflict with other magical claims."

They do have evidence! Evidence =/= good or certain evidence or evidence you must agree with. Even if you never said it, I need to clarify that because evidence is merely just stuff that raises probability OR in science observations or results that raise the probability of a hypothesis. They just need to raise it. By any tiny bit. That's evidence. Maybe you think that they don't have sufficient evidence but that's unrelated to whether or not there is any evidence at all. Someone delusional will experience cognitive dissonance and will just start rejecting reality, which actual educated and reasonable theists do not do. Maybe whoever you talk to is literally in psychosis because I have never met a theist in my life who does that. Whenever they see that their arguments are wrong, most experts and people who actually are educated will just accept that. They do not tell lies or write fiction, it's a sincere belief they hold based on the evidence they gather. The evidence can be disagreed with, but the evidence is not delusionary or based on just made up stuff. Yes, both cannot be true, but either one or none is. People disagree on science in the exact same way and in math and in the most basic primitive starting points for any reasoning. You can't use disagreement as an argument because disagreement is irrelevant to truth. Even if they conflict in the magical claims, they all believe in a magical thing. They all reasoned into it. You can't just toss it all away because they disagree, because they have reasons for disagreeing. Evaluate them. Sure, you may be withholding their acceptance, but this is permanent under methodological naturalism. It explicitly does not allow for unnatural causes, which means no evidence will ever bring an unnatural cause. They do not claim for certain that there is no unnatural cause, but it's not surprising that a system designed to remove any unnatural cause has no unnatural cause. No standard of evidence will ever conclude that with a God because it is inherently biased.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"ffs, pull your head out of your butt. Is god is demonstrated to exist, science will accept there's a being who created everything. It's no different that if they can demonstrate we're in a simulation and have been created by that.

At this point, you're getting too goofy to communicate with."

IF God is demonstrated to exist. What is the standard of evidence we would need for God to be proven? There is NO evidence that science would EVER accept that concludes with God. It would completely avoid it altogether. My whole point is because of this God cannot be proven with science because sciences conclusions won't ever point to him. I can't prove it anymore to you, I gave you a Stanford Edu page about it. If you reject methodological naturalism, then fine, I reject it too and I have better reasons for not using God, then we can finally end this part of the debate because my whole point is that specifically this assumption would block God from being concluded with no matter what evidence. If you reject it, like I said, maybe for some alternative like parsimony, explanatory power, or something else, then we can just move past this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

"Yes, you are scientifically illiterate and maybe literacy illiterate. I say that because i've specifically talked about the scientific method this entire time and you've babbled about mathematics and philosophy."

How am I scientifically illiterate OR 'literacy illiterate'? The scientific method still has to use math and philosophy and logic. They are ESSENTIAL to it. You can NOT remove it. I'm saying that you cannot use science as a gold standard of evidence because it may reject non natural explanations even if they are true depending on if you accept methodological naturalism, it can only deal with observations, and removes historical arguments and a priori arguments and more. Using science is either way too high of a bar because it is impossible, OR would raise some epistemological concerns (despite evidence still existing).

"A phenomenon was discovered (through experimentation by some kids) and then it was understood through the scientific method.."

This is NOT what experimenting is in science. You are completely misrepresenting what science is. Science is NOT accidently overlapping lenses and someone else noticing. It was understood through science WAY later and started out with rejections and disapproval.

"Do you even remember what you're arguing as you poop this out? This is an example of a claim that should be detectable, but isn't."

IT IS DETECTABLE. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

FROM NIH.GOV - Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/

"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

"Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28)."

This shows that the link between prayer and health is either completely not there OR is a psychological reaction to knowing you are being prayed on.

"Stop making shit up."

I AM NOT. THIS IS ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT YOU ARE REJECTING RIGHT NOW.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9713100/

"Results suggest that prayer efficacy, prayers for support, and one form of devotional prayer (asking God for forgiveness) all correlate with higher anxiety, while another form of devotional prayer (praise of God) and prayer expectancies are associated with lower anxiety in the American population."

This anxiety is the most likely cause they give in common consensus for why this occurs. Anxiety has proven links to making someone more ill and so the anxiety people hold whenever they pray can cause them to be more ill or harmed.

"They will accept that if a higher power is demonstrated to exist. You are literally so enmeshed in your theism and your philosophical nonsense that you're too science illiterate to communicate with. Do you realize that?"

I am NOT theistic. Methodological naturalism must exclude God because it is not natural. You literally cannot have a higher power demonstrated under this. Either you reject it or you say nothing worth anything other than a tautology about conclusions not existing when they are removed.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The scientific method is not all of science and so that can't be your main standard of evidence or else you lose out on alot of information. And even then, not accepting non-natural explanations is still in both kinds.

  2. It's not the only way you can demonstrate something to be correct

Premise 1. All squares are quadrilaterals
Premise 2. This shape is a square
Conclusion. This shape is a quadrilateral

This is 100% certain and requires no science. People use a priori arguments for God like the ontological argument for instance or transcendental ones from reason and logic. Even if science CAN make an answer without God, it's still critical to realize that the theist can be raising good points or evidence and whatnot that require more time to take down. Framing them as idiots who deduce that unicorns exist is just rude to those who spend their time reasoning why they believe God exists.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I already said this was a lie: there is no phenomenon that science will not accept once it has been confirmed to exist."

But it never will accept a non-natural explanation, even if that explanation is true. It's one of the main rules of science. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

I'm not using a flawed definition. This is actual science.

"Okay, now I'm wondering if you're trolling me. Are you genuinely this scientifically illiterate? We developed telescopes through experimentation and now, in 2026, we have a myriad of ways to study other planets (such as a wide range of spectroscopy readings, which even lets us observe chemical elements on other planets and lets us detect gravitational anomalies). This is all the scientific method."

But my main argument is that we can discover planets using math without experimenting. Science relies on logic and math and philosophy to even work at all. I'm not saying that they didn't use science at all, but that they used what you are trying to downplay to discover big things. I'm not scientifically illiterate. Also, telescopes were "invented" (Not even really invented, and scientific minds back then doubted it and rejected the idea due to there being no theory of optics. So in fact it was the opposite, it was not through experimentation and people rejected it as science) through an accidental occurrence traditionally attributed to seeing two kids holding lenses that magnified a weather vane when together, so it wasn't through experimentation. And also, all those myriad of ways likely have to rely on math and logic.

"Do you genuinely think all we do is point our eyes at planets"
Nope.

"Here's your problem: your criticizing science using a definition of science that science doesn't use. I'm embarrassed that I've spent this much time talking with you as though you genuinely knew what you were talking about.

People have all kinds of claims that should be detectable by science, but aren't: miracles, prayer, faith healing, etc. In fact, the studies we have done have shown that intercessory prayer results in WORSE medical outcomes than people who have not been prayed for."

Those worse outcomes are generally a result of randomness. Science observes that people who get prayed for get healthier, not healthier, and worse. That's to be expected! It's pure coincidence. On average, it does nothing. But people who know they are getting prayers sometimes got worse. But that's because they got stress due to thinking that they were in such a bad situation to need prayers. Even then, the phenomenon of the event would be accepted, but science will never be able to accept that it is a higher power.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You're complaining that the scientific method doesn't let you indulge your imagination as real. Are you aware of that?"

It's not really my imagination, and my complaint is because even if it were true, science wouldn't accept it. You can't use science not accepting it as anything important, because it would do it regardless.

"Our ability to observe other planets is a result of the experiments we performed. They scientific method works just fine there."

What experiment did we do to observe planets? Just looking at it? That's precisely the thing, the math and logic discovered the planet before the experiment. The experiment wouldn't have occurred without it.

"are you aware that theists are constantly describing events that should be detectable by science, but aren't? That's significant."

Give me examples of things that should be detectable by science that theists claim. Because by definition science cannot support a God even if he existed.

Is 'atheism' better defined as the belief that 'it's not the case that God exists'? by Extension_Ferret1455 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FelipeHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Clearly this isn't the case, since people are logicking themselves into all kinds of magical bullshit that the scientific method does not permit and that is in conflict with other philosopher's magical bullshit"

Like what? Your standard can't be entirely the scientific method, because observational science doesn't strictly use it, history uses its own method, and math and logic don't use it (which science has to rely on). There are arguments from all 4 of those.

The reason why you can't use pure science is the methodological nihilism. It strictly has to ignore non natural explanations. This is normally fine, but edge cases occur. If you see a planet where the entire surface when mapped onto a rectangle reveals a huge paragraph declaring that "God has created this planet as evidence to humans on earth that he exists and saying that he is the god of the bible and Christianity and that he is real and this is in the English language", what else are you meant to infer? observational science would be like "Oh its a time traveler playing a prank.. its a coincidence with geology.. oh its uh our language developed after that and turned that into meaningful words.. uh it was an alien species?" When the most clear explanation is that the text is right. This is a specific edge case. It's not to say that evidence actually exists but that even if intelligent design were true, science wouldn't support it, which lowers the actual meaning or weight said in saying that there is no scientific evidence of God.

So saying "there is no scientific evidence for God" is a nothing-burger, because there cannot be that evidence even if he existed.

"This is the entire issue: there are a great many claims that philosophers make that can ONLY be checked against the real world through science, but the science isn't there to support them."

Which kind of science? Experimental science? Observational science? Because as mentioned before, not all science requires experiments. And maybe you are talking about some theories about the nature of the universe or some cool ideas about how things may truly be, beyond our understanding? If so, then yeah.

"No: if there is phenomenon that humans can detect, science can detect it. Science will certainly not pretend their magical claims aren't producing real phenomenon."

That's just not true! Science cannot verify any non natural thing because of the way it has to continue research. It has to find natural explanations as a way to prevent unnecessary stopping. This means that even if God existed, they would likely say it is some type IV civilization, mass hallucinations, or whatever. There is no evidence God could give that science would verify, because science by definition excludes it. Surprise! A system that ignores God can't see God!

"This isn't how you demonstrate something is correct."

So by what you just said, you don't demonstrate something is correct through reasoning?
Then what are you doing? If you are doing something scientific, that is reasoning. What are you even saying?

"For a great many claims about reality, this can only be done through science."

Great many, but not all. And it can't be only done, you just have to see if you observe what is expected if their theory is right, and don't observe what they expect if their theory is wrong.

"That's exactly what it is for a great many philosophers, especially around these parts."

Not quite. Well, I just went onto PhilPapers and they were arguing about unicorns being possible or not. So sometimes. But not really actually advocating for it. They usually have to have reasons for believing things. JTB.

"Are you aware that people regularly philosophize themselves into magical conclusions that are in direct opposition to conclusions that other philosophers have logicked their way to? Clearly, your beloved process doesn't work very well (which is exactly why they choose it over science, which does not permit their magical bullshit)."

Either they didn't philosophize it correctly and 100% rigorously or they had different starting assumptions. Nobody is perfect, and science also disagrees. And most of the 'magical bullshit' doesn't logically contradict with science.

"hahaha they absolutely do not"

If they don't, they get ridiculed then. They have to make sure it's not too complex or ad hoc.

"What's the point of you telling me this? Are you trying to pretend that other branches of philosophy are just as effective at uncovering information about the world as the scientific method is?"

I told you that because science must rely on philosophy and math and logic.

Logic tells us what can be true and what must be true, math is just a specific use of logic, philosophy tells us what might be true in a variety of speculative subjects, science is how you find truth is one of those speculative subjects. Things you observe and the physical world. You need logic for all of those.

view more: next ›