Replies

Dear spunkets, you wrote: “The burden is not on science to show that what can not be demonstrated doesn't exist. The burden of evidence lies with the person claiming something does exist. Science is rightly justified in excluding those things, and the evidence for those things, which are in conflict with what it can clearly see and account for.”

You wrote this as part of your answer to my assertion:

"For one cannot claim that ontology (the philosophical study of being) is ‘measurable’ in any scientific sense. How do you put being under a microscope? Or how see it by means of a high-powered telescope?"

To which you replied: “Being is the equivalent of is. If the object physically exists in this world, it's amenable to scientific study.”

Well, sure. But this the same thing as saying that all real existents are amenable to scientific study. And therefore, existents not so amenable must therefore be fictions. Is this your position?

Actually, it seems you leave this point quite vague. But it is the very heart of the matter.

So, what do you really think?

Re:“Being is the equivalent of is. If the object physically exists in this world, it's amenable to scientific study.”

" But this the same thing as saying that all real existents are amenable to scientific study. And therefore, existents not so amenable must therefore be fictions. Is this your position?"

No. Existents not amenable to scientific study are not necessarily fictitious. Only those in conflict with the reality science knows and understands are. Otherwise, the matter is simply outside of science. It can stand as a dual, meaning that it stands as a perfectly logical possibility, along with a scientifically generated possibility. Or, the existent is simply not amenable to the scientific study and there's no relation to what science can address at all.

For instance. The beginning of this world appears to science as the equivalent of a phase transformation, regardless of particular details. As far as I know, the details within science will appear as duals. ie. several descriptions of the same thing. The idea that God created the universe stands as a dual. It can not be ruled out, because it does not conflict with science. In order to do so, science would have to rule out it's own duals and subject things outside this world to the scientific method. Hence, Matt 12:37-38. God's not dumb. The physics of this world play the role of the flaming sword wielding cherubim in Gen 3.

Thank you so much for the ping to your sidebar discussion! Just a few comments on spunkets’ example from post 224:

For instance. The beginning of this world appears to science as the equivalent of a phase transformation, regardless of particular details. As far as I know, the details within science will appear as duals. ie. several descriptions of the same thing. The idea that God created the universe stands as a dual. It can not be ruled out, because it does not conflict with science. In order to do so, science would have to rule out it's own duals and subject things outside this world to the scientific method. Hence, Matt 12:37-38. God's not dumb.

As I understand the example, when science arrives at its “best guess” about a thing it may be fully compatible with another interpretation – like the wave/particle duality – the electron is both a particle and a wave, species were both evolved and specially created, etc. Somehow, I cannot imagine the Dawkins, Lewontins, Singers and Pinkers of the world allowing any such alternate interpretation on their watch...

The physics of this world play the role of the flaming sword wielding cherubim in Gen 3.

You might find it interesting that some Jewish mystics understand the firmament in Genesis 1 as not being a geometric thing (here v there) but rather a boundary between the spiritual and the physical – and further that the firmament is the speed of light. Food for thought…

And one last point - phase transformation in the beginning of this world requires preexisting space/time, physical laws and physical causation – none of which can exist in the void. It is only one among several cosmological varieties. (Time before Time)