IOW you have redefined “natural” to suit your argument ... that’s neither big nor clever.
Give an example of a natural explanation that does not depend on what exists and the way it works.
Don’t duck it, do it!
Er ... whut? I assume you are not going to answer my post (debating isn’t your strong suit is it?)?
Kyu
What you can assume is that I won’t even read the rest of your post, until you give an example of a natural explanation which does not fit with my definition.
If you can’t then we should be able to both agree on the definition and move forward from there.
Well I’d be very upset with myself if I thought I’d personally attacked Kyu.
I think that was aimed at me.
StephenLawrence - 23 July 2008 02:55 PM
What you can assume is that I won’t even read the rest of your post, until you give an example of a natural explanation which does not fit with my definition.
What I can also assume is that you are chickening out of the debate. I am disputing your definitions so, I’m sorry, but I will not be able to supply you with an example that fits them. Ooh, here’s an idea ... given that these definitions are yours, that few people appears to be agreeing with them, why don’t YOU try and supply examples that fit them? Intriguing idea don’t you think?
StephenLawrence - 23 July 2008 02:55 PM
If you can’t then we should be able to both agree on the definition and move forward from there.
Natural typically refers to something that is observable, for which there exists validatable evidence and an actual or potential explanation ... even if there is no explanation the very fact that there is an observable phenomenon qualifies it as natural. Non-natural typically refers to things that are natural in the sense that they exist but are not explained by nature’s usual workings for example manufactured goods, the workings of mankind and so on. Supernatural refers to things for which there is no validatable evidence.
Regardless of whether we can explain its origins the universe clearly falls into the category of natural.
What you can assume is that I won’t even read the rest of your post, until you give an example of a natural explanation which does not fit with my definition.
What I can also assume is that you are chickening out of the debate. I am disputing your definitions so, I’m sorry, but I will not be able to supply you with an example that fits them. Ooh, here’s an idea ... given that these definitions are yours, that few people appears to be agreeing with them, why don’t YOU try and supply examples that fit them? Intriguing idea don’t you think?
I’m asking for an example that doesn’t fit my definition. It should be a piece of cake, if my definition is wrong.
Natural typically refers to something that is observable, for which there exists validatable evidence and an actual or potential explanation ...
So if there is no actual or potential explanation for why the universe exists, then it is not natural?
regardless of whether we can explain its origins the universe clearly falls into the category of natural.
Well I think it does too but by your reasoning, if we can’t explain it’s origins it doesn’t.
Anyhow this all misses my point.
All I’m interested in is what is your reason to suppose we can find a natural explanation? What is the nature of natural explanations? I’m not defining natural, I’m defining natural explanations.
All natural explanations depend upon what exists and the way it works. Or not?
How can you get from what exists and the way it works, to why it exists and why it work that way? And what reason is there to suppose you can?
As far as I can tell, Stephen is postulating a world view by stepping outside the boundaries of the known. His questions are perfectly reasonable if one assumes that our reach extends that far.
Kyu, you’re not rejecting that assumption, and therefore you’re playing the game on Stephen’s turf. You’re still “winning” the discussion through secularist eyes, but there’s no reason to play the game on that turf. At least that’s how I see it.
As far as I can tell, Stephen is postulating a world view by stepping outside the boundaries of the known. His questions are perfectly reasonable if one assumes that our reach extends that far.
Kyu, you’re not rejecting that assumption, and therefore you’re playing the game on Stephen’s turf. You’re still “winning” the discussion through secularist eyes, but there’s no reason to play the game on that turf. At least that’s how I see it.
I’m asking for an example that doesn’t fit my definition. It should be a piece of cake, if my definition is wrong.
And I repeat that it is YOU who are proposing the new (extraordinary) definition therefore it is YOU who have to supply the evidence/example.
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
So if there is no actual or potential explanation for why the universe exists, then it is not natural?
I see no rational reason why that might be so ... and as I have repeatedly said to you, nor do the hundreds of scientists working to explain the same seem overly concerned.
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
Well I think it does too but by your reasoning, if we can’t explain it’s origins it doesn’t.
And in my book that simply means we haven’t explained it ... yet!!!!! Who the hell ever said science has all the answers? Who the hell ever suggested that as out technology and ability to understand progresses we won’t understand more. At best your ideas are premature.
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
Anyhow this all misses my point.
This is all frightfully dull!
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
All I’m interested in is what is your reason to suppose we can find a natural explanation? What is the nature of natural explanations? I’m not defining natural, I’m defining natural explanations.
I get that you’re interested in it ... I don’t accept that your attempts to redefine “natural” are valid.
Quite obviously (as again I’ve said repeatedly) my reasoning for accepting that at some point the existence of the universe might be explained is that science (and math) is the only thing that has ever explained anything in a validatable sense, that no explanation so far given has ever requested or required the action of deity (or indeed any other non-natural force) and that the hundreds of scientists working in relevant fields not only appear to be unconcerned by ideas like yours but are happily hypothesising about the origins of the universe despite them. Curious that ... perhaps you’d care to offer some kind of explanation as to why these scientists continue to work in such areas without concern for questions such as yours?
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
All natural explanations depend upon what exists and the way it works. Or not?
Natural explanations are based on reasonable interpretations of observable, validatable data and such explanations must be falsifiable.
StephenLawrence - 24 July 2008 04:08 AM
How can you get from what exists and the way it works, to why it exists and why it work that way? And what reason is there to suppose you can?
Your question assume that the why is in some way different from how and, as (bored now) repeatedly stated, I do not accept that.
Your question assume that the why is in some way different from how and, as (bored now) repeatedly stated, I do not accept that.
Kyu
So why your leg exists, or why it works the way it does, can be answered by telling me how it works?
That’s plain wrong.
You may be right to believe natural causes are all we need, in fact if I had to bet on it I’d bet the same way but what you have, is no reason to believe it, and your repeated use of the hundreds of scientists shows that. If hundreds of scientists believe it they must be right.
Other atheists have given their reasons. One said the universe is our concept and I’m asking the wrong question because of that. One said the question is meaningless and gave a reason. And to take a well known scientist Stephen Hawkings, he thinks there is reason to believe the universe could cause itself to exist, something usually considered to be a contradiction but his belief is backed up by evidence.
You, on the other hand, simply have faith and there is no point in debating with someone who has faith without evidence, so I’ll leave it there.
Your question assume that the why is in some way different from how and, as (bored now) repeatedly stated, I do not accept that.
So why your leg exists, or why it works the way it does, can be answered by telling me how it works?
How it works and how it evolved (in essence a catalogued history of how it worked and how it related to things around it) yes.
StephenLawrence - 25 July 2008 10:55 AM
That’s plain wrong.
Nope.
StephenLawrence - 25 July 2008 10:55 AM
You may be right to believe natural causes are all we need, in fact if I had to bet on it I’d bet the same way but what you have, is no reason to believe it, and your repeated use of the hundreds of scientists shows that. If hundreds of scientists believe it they must be right.
Which isn’t what I said is it? What I inferred from that is that hundreds of scientists consider it an acceptable manner to research the creation of the universe using scientific method, the same scientific method that has explained many things already, the only method (math excepted that has explained anything in a validatable sense) … and then there’s you who doesn’t.
So we have them on the one hand and you on the other … so sorry if you think I’m nuts but I will choose scientists, scientists who come up with rational explanations, scientists who publish in reputable journals every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every [expletive deleted] year over you!!!!!!
Have I made myself clear?
StephenLawrence - 25 July 2008 10:55 AM
Other atheists have given their reasons. One said the universe is our concept and I’m asking the wrong question because of that. One said the question is meaningless and gave a reason. And to take a well known scientist Stephen Hawkings, he thinks there is reason to believe the universe could cause itself to exist, something usually considered to be a contradiction but his belief is backed up by evidence.
Ooh! So look who’s quoting scientists now? More to the point, relatively recently Hawking asserted that the universe may have sprung from nothing likening it creation to bubbles that eventually grow large enough to prevent spontaneous collapse. I dunno, maybe he changed his mind.
StephenLawrence - 25 July 2008 10:55 AM
You, on the other hand, simply have faith and there is no point in debating with someone who has faith without evidence, so I’ll leave it there.
Yet again you are wrong, what I have said very, very clearly is that I see no reason that your version of the why question, your apparent assertion that the creation of the universe is somehow inexplicable to science … that and that alone is what I am railing against.
So we have them on the one hand and you on the other … so sorry if you think I’m nuts but I will choose scientists, scientists who come up with rational explanations, scientists who publish in reputable journals every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every [expletive deleted] year over you!!!!!!
So we have them on the one hand and you on the other … so sorry if you think I’m nuts but I will choose scientists, scientists who come up with rational explanations, scientists who publish in reputable journals every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every [expletive deleted] year over you!!!!!!
Have I made myself clear?
Yes, perfectly clear. You have faith.
Stephen
Defined that way, everyone has Faith. I was reborn in Faith, but it has nothing to do with any theological belief. How are you defining “faith?”
Faith but not of the religious kind, faith based on the confidence that to date, nothing outside of science and math, have offered validatable explanations for any aspect of the universe around us.
And OTOH there’s you claiming you know something, some indefinable something, some question or slant on a question that such individuals, such scientists, such thinkers have missed ... gimme a [expletive deleted] break!
*sweating, Chocotacoi8 slowly backs away...*
