Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Unbeliever]

To apply a standard that applies to both science and religion, you would first need a standard.  One rub is that there is no such standard.  Science recognizes there is no standard that works for both.  Consequently, it does not deal with religious beliefs.  Theists often think science deals with religious beliefs because science offers explanations that negate Biblical explanations, but this is not done intentionally with malice or with an agenda to expand the boundaries of science into the supernatural.  Science simply ignores the supernatural.  Any contradiction is unintended.

Science is a process in box.  The box is a set of rules.  The rules have been borrowed from logic.  These rules are very restrictive.  This prevents scientists from thinking outside the box.  In Theology, thinking outside the box is encouraged.  Science forbids it, although scientists sometimes falter, and get carried away.  This is not a fault of science.  It's a lapse of logic.  It's a human error.

So when you say you apply the same standard to both science and religion, what is that standard?  What are the rules you apply to test religious beliefs?  How do you apply those rules to science?  Science disallows certain rules of religious methodology.  Faith being the most obvious.

The standards for religion are not the same as science.  If you have found a way to reconcile science and religion, you would be the first man to do it.  Religion would like to reconcile the two.  It would be a feather in religion's cap to point to science that actually verifies the existence of a god.  But once again, science recognizes and accepts that IF the supernatural domain exists at all, it lies outside the restrictive box of the scientific process [at this time].

Yep, science is based, entirely, on methodological naturalism. Without it, science could never have progressed from the ancient Greeks to the heights we've reached today. There's very little in Drew's world that he can point to and say that science had nothing to do with it's existence. Not even the plants he might see any day of the week - though they certainly look "natural," they've all been molded by scientists over the centuries.

[Unbeliever]

I have no desire for reconciliation.  Nor am I at war.  Pluralism isn't a bad thing.  Consistency is a fetish.

Drew -
"These laws do exist though. Its not that we invented them or calculated them into existence we calculated and created formulas because they existed. But I'm sure I'm wrong..."

Yes, you are wrong.  You need to get past your Popular Mechanics understanding of science (which many atheists here share with you).  A few of us get "science" ... understand it, not just know some facts about it.  Properly taught in Jr High, one can learn real scientific method, not just indoctrination .. it isn't that hard.

There are very few hard scientific laws, and they keep getting knocked down over time .. conservation of energy and conservation of mass, are forced to be combined into the conservation of mass-energy for instance.  The two prior laws were 19th century, the unified law is 20th century, but I am sure the sci-fi fans will tell us that by overturning the conservation of mass-energy (how?) we will soon have free lunches and warp drives.

And time travel! don't forget about time travel!

[Baruch]

When you say its a tentative conclusion (that naturalistic forces without plan or intent caused the universe and life) you mean its possible it was caused intentionally by a personal agent(s)? I suspect your tentative position means your only 99.9999 % convinced.

What kind of naturalism, can be falsified ... but not naturalism itself, that is assumed.  And yes, for many, the naturalism/supernaturalism is a false dichotomy.  Rationalists decry logical fallacies, and they commit them ;-)  But Drew, you are still talking philosophy, not science.  Just say you are a philosopher, not a scientist ... and you have me.

[Baruch]

Haha! "and the winner is...hey, wait, that's not the winner!

That happened to me when I was 15, got an award, in front of a large crowd of parents and kids, and then the judges admitted they had pulled the wrong card!  Still have flashbacks!  I graciously gave over the large 1st place trophy to the other kid.

[Baruch]

And time travel! don't forget about time travel!

We time travel all the time ... it is called aging.  We have anti-gravity machines ... they are called chairs.  New science doesn't overturn old laws .. Einstein didn't make apples fall up!

[Drew_2017]

What kind of naturalism, can be falsified ... but not naturalism itself, that is assumed.  And yes, for many, the naturalism/supernaturalism is a false dichotomy.  Rationalists decry logical fallacies, and they commit them ;-)  But Drew, you are still talking philosophy, not science.  Just say you are a philosopher, not a scientist ... and you have me.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say I'm a philosopher...just an opinionated coffee house kibitzer.

[Drew_2017]

To apply a standard that applies to both science and religion, you would first need a standard.  One rub is that there is no such standard.  Science recognizes there is no standard that works for both.  Consequently, it does not deal with religious beliefs.  Theists often think science deals with religious beliefs because science offers explanations that negate Biblical explanations, but this is not done intentionally with malice or with an agenda to expand the boundaries of science into the supernatural.  Science simply ignores the supernatural.  Any contradiction is unintended.

Just so you know I didn't say that. I said I apply the same evidential standard to naturalism or theism. Someone responded and wrote science and religion...

[doorknob]

I wouldn't even go so far as to say I'm a philosopher...just an opinionated coffee house kibitzer.

isn't that the same thing?

[Baruch]

isn't that the same thing?

French philosophers are winos.

[badger2]

This thread is an example of the glossing over of the complexity. Even as recent as Chief Justice Marshall's fascination with the concept of deodand (the ship did it, the tool, etc.), there is now a capitalism in its descending phase that continues its very special relationship to the schizophrenic process as well as the delirium of expansionism on a planet with finite resources. They lost it when they put up a banner saying "god" at Malheur, noting that it was Obama who appointed Amanda Marshall, a persona directly connected to the Oregon travesty.

[Baruch]

There is no complexity, just simple minds baffled ;-)

[Unbeliever]

There is no complexity, just simple minds baffled ;-)

[badger2]

Trillions of pornographic images of petroleum addiction are daily injected into the unconscious of the prisoners caught fast in the curare-resin of Jaba's Matrix, and there's no complexity. Precious.

'In Common Law, Holmes provides a charming, almost quaint, example of this temporality of law, this forgetting and inventing of sense that brings rules into existence: the "deodand."According to Holmes a common feature of ancient and superstitious societies was to punish and destroy objects that caused harm....As Holmes writes, "A ship is the most living of inanimate things." The ship was treated as if endowed with personality. Almost incredibly, the treatment of ships as a willful and responsible agent endured all the way to 1844 when Justice Story of the U.S. Supreme Court approvingly cites Chief Justice Marshall: "This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offense committed by the vessel." Obviously the Court no longer thinks that an inanimate thing is capable of committing an offense. And yet, we see a renewal of the deodand rule under a different scheme of interests and reasons.'
(LeFebvre, The Image of Law: Deleuze, Bergson, Spinoza, Ch. 5 The Time of Law: Evolution in Holmes and Bergson)

[Unbeliever]

[Baruch]

Trillions of pornographic images of petroleum addiction are daily injected into the unconscious of the prisoners caught fast in the curare-resin of Jaba's Matrix, and there's no complexity. Precious.

'In Common Law, Holmes provides a charming, almost quaint, example of this temporality of law, this forgetting and inventing of sense that brings rules into existence: the "deodand."According to Holmes a common feature of ancient and superstitious societies was to punish and destroy objects that caused harm....As Holmes writes, "A ship is the most living of inanimate things." The ship was treated as if endowed with personality. Almost incredibly, the treatment of ships as a willful and responsible agent endured all the way to 1844 when Justice Story of the U.S. Supreme Court approvingly cites Chief Justice Marshall: "This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offense committed by the vessel." Obviously the Court no longer thinks that an inanimate thing is capable of committing an offense. And yet, we see a renewal of the deodand rule under a different scheme of interests and reasons.'
(LeFebvre, The Image of Law: Deleuze, Bergson, Spinoza, Ch. 5 The Time of Law: Evolution in Holmes and Bergson)

In the US now, corporations are people, and citizens are meat-ware.  Cellular-automata are simple, but their results are complex (if you don't know what they are).  Wolfram much?  See A New Kind Of Science.  Perhaps Planck-size cellular quanta are quite simple.  Accounting is simple, just adding and subtracting.  Yet we run the US government on it.