Why an Atheist in the R&S Forum?

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by myuen2

I am interested. Newton had his shot that I dismissed as an assumption. You rejected my contention offhand. Do you have a proof that masses attract each other? I don't think you understand what I am pointing out here.

No, I don't. That's the reason I asked you to clarify what do you mean by "proof".
It is very strange choice of word when it comes to science.
And since you did not answer my question, in my mind the jury is still out on whether or not you have a fair understanding how the science works.


Can you tell what do you mean by "proof" or not?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.

Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.

I think I'm beginning to understand.

[myuen2]

Originally Posted by mordant

I do not think that's a fair characterization.

Methodological naturalism does not assert that "man controls everything" or that there is "no order in the world" or that order is created by man wishing upon a star. It simply observes and measures. Sometimes, thereby, man does gain a degree of understanding and therefore control over certain things. But it's not the goal or the inherent purpose of investigating the natural world. I think it's mostly curiosity and a desire to make the world a less harsh and unpredictable place to live in.

As to an existing order, I think it's self-evident that we exist in the context of natural laws and forces, and I don't see anyone denying that. We might disagree on from whence that emanates but not on its existence. Man finds himself in a circumstance and attempts to understand how that works / came to be / how it might be harnessed or predicted to the general welfare. I see nothing wrong or nefarious in that.

It sounds like you are forcing a false dichotomy into the mix here, and suggesting that one has to choose between understanding the natural world or honoring god. Or conversely, that one must honor god through willful ignorance of what is knowable about the natural world.

Naturalism has defined what you are: a human organism with a finite life span on planet Earth. This could change. Naturalists foresee advancement in technology that can usher in a transhuman and posthuman world which lends itself to absolute control of God knows what.

[myuen2]

Originally Posted by Sonof

No, I don't. That's the reason I asked you to clarify what do you mean by "proof".
It is very strange choice of word when it comes to science.
And since you did not answer my question, in my mind the jury is still out on whether or not you have a fair understanding how the science works.


Can you tell what do you mean by "proof" or not?

Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.

I think, I'm beginning to understand...

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Yes, I do.

"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes", they say. The phenomena may be natural (i.e. not man-made); however, the causes always are cooked up by the naturalists.

It is not that science limits itself to naturalism, it is that naturalism is a conclusion of science, because that is what the evidence tells us. The cause is not 'cooked up', the cause is never an intelligent super being because there is no evidence for that idea. In over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it, even when the research has been done by religious people.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.

Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.

Can you explain it using your god hypothesis? Not just assert a god did it, explain it, as in how a god did it, how a god knew how do do it, and how you know about what this god knows?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.

And yet you want 'proof' that 'that masses attract each other'?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by myuen2

Naturalism has defined what you are: a human organism with a finite life span on planet Earth. This could change. Naturalists foresee advancement in technology that can usher in a transhuman and posthuman world which lends itself to absolute control of God knows what.

Transhumanism is a fringe tech bro thing. Most people understand how much we don't understand, and how manipulating human genetics and physiology could have all sorts of unintended consequences. Judging from how even modest interventions are problematic (e.g., testosterone maintenance as men age to delay aging / improve aspects of stamina is both no substitute for good diet / physical fitness and is a likely cancer risk increase) I see this kind of thing as a self-limiting problem. Wealthy clowns might only get these interventions, and that might actually be in everyone's best interest, since the interventions aren't likely to pan out and the rest of us won't waste our time and $.

[myuen2]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

It is not that science limits itself to naturalism, it is that naturalism is a conclusion of science, because that is what the evidence tells us. The cause is not 'cooked up', the cause is never an intelligent super being because there is no evidence for that idea. In over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it, even when the research has been done by religious people.

Precisely. Conclusions are all that naturalism can make based on observations of natural phenomena.

Take a simple example of naturalism's conclusion about itself as a belief that everything arises from natural causes. How does this belief arise? Is it a conclusion of science? What is the natural cause of the belief? What is the evidence upon which this conclusion is based?

Don't walk away from this conversation, Harry. You think religious people are idiots. I think naturalists are idiots also.

(Note: The word "idiot" is not being used here as a pejorative but in an objective sense equivalent to "coarse mind" affected by the primordial force of ignorance or avidya (sanskrit). I speak American.)