Replies

"In other words, he's saying that we must assuming only the natural and reject the supernatural (within scientific experimentation) because once we start assuming a "god", we throw out any chance of objectivity -- if you allow explanations outside of known properties of the natural universe, then you can just make anything up for your reasoning and justify it as a "miracle".

Thing is, he's right."

The thing is, he is blinded by his dogma, as you seem to be. The idea that the order and complexity of this universe is soley the result of unguided chance is what is hard to believe. The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

What you are doing is starting out with an unproven assumption that there is no God and calling that "objectivity". Ridiculous. It is simply a decision you have made that by your own confession you cannot prove or disprove scientifically. It then becomes a matter of labeling your personal preferences as "objectivity".

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown. Thus Naturalism posing as science is a threat to the progress of real science. What you call "supernatural" today may be a natural part of a higher plane of existence that we can one day discover- if investigations into it are not ruled out in advance by the high priests of Naturalism that have taken science captive.

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown. Thus Naturalism posing as science is a threat to the progress of real science. What you call "supernatural" today may be a natural part of a higher plane of existence that we can one day discover- if investigations into it are not ruled out in advance by the high priests of Naturalism that have taken science captive.

Every swami and holy man in the world is entirely free to explore the unknown properties of the universe. I've always assumed that this is what they do for a living. Scientists don't know how to explore the spiritual domain. Their instruments aren't capable of registering such phenomena. When the supernaturalists have some solid evidence to show for their efforts, I'm sure the scientific community will be delighted to receive it.

The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

Which "God", exactly? You see, there have been several thousand proposed throughout human history.

What you are doing is starting out with an unproven assumption that there is no God and calling that "objectivity".

No, my position is that because no one has provided evidence for any gods, I've no reason to assume the existence of any. You're the one introducing some specific "God" construct, but you don't have any evidence for it, so you'll need to get in line behind the few thousand other people that got here before you, each with their own "God" construct to pitch, each offering as much evidence as you.

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown.

So are you suggesting that, when we come to a point when our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain a phenomenon, we should just chalk it up to a sudden miracle, a point where the laws of physics were temporarily suspended, and stop all inquiry at that? And you call me short-sighted?

The idea that the order and complexity of this universe is soley the result of unguided chance is what is hard to believe.

Well, it may be hard to believe and pretty counter-intuitive to most people but this doesn't mean that complex systems cannot arise from relatively simple interactions of matter. Our weather for instance is such a non-linear dynamical system.
Or do you think that a conscious agent is directly responsible for the hurricanes that cross the Atlantic to ravage the east coast and the Carribean? And how's it with tornadoes in the Great Plains?

The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

Yeah, I'm sure this sentence has been uttered millions of times when scientists and interested laymen tried to find a natural explanation for lightning only a few centuries ago.
High voltage, high current, transient electrical discharge - what a silly idea.