Flaw of Atheism in Regards to Science

[emprworm]

science can only explain that which is according to natural law.  yet science does not demand that all events are natural.

even in an atheistic universe, forcing science to mandate all events are natural could be crippling and completely false.

[Acriku]

Forcing science to do anything would be contrary to its established tenets. We've already gone over that.

However, in the course of gathering data and formulating theories when can one determine that it is supernatural? How can one determine such?

[emprworm]

atheism frequently discards any explanation that is not natural.  in fact, atheism calls even the idea of a supernatural origin of an event 'irrational'.

this, of course.....

is irrational

[Acriku]

You're ignoring the question Empr, with strawmen of your own. Can you answer the question, or if it needs clarification I'd be glad to oblige.

[emprworm]

by formulating a theory.

[Acriku]

by formulating a theory. 

science cannot prove unobserved history.  (i.e. the earth is not proven to be 4.5 billion years, it is theorized to be)

science cannot prove the supernatural.

Theories thrive on evidence. What evidence can support its supernature? When a phenamenon occurs, and a scientist deems it supernatural, how can he support this claim? In truth, he'd be shot down by the harsh critiques of his peers, which happens with any theory that can't hold its ground.

if you want an answer to your question, please re-read my second post in this thread, as I already gave an example of a supernatural event that is virtually undeniably supernatural, and would be identified as such.  (it is described such that a natural explanation for such an event is far less probable and completely irrational in light of the obvious supernatural explanation)

Actually, it could be an alien with immense technology that places the planet there, we have no idea. The scientists wouldn't jump to conclusions, like you want them to do. Just because it is amazing what they saw, does not mean it is supernatural. They will study it, and possibly never come up with an answer. However, if one brings up that a god did it, how does he support it? By the argument of incredulity? That's fallacious.

Also, that's certainly an extreme, however science branches out to many different areas - should there be an option of a supernatural cause in every area? Going away from the extreme side, how does one formulate a theory and properly support it with minor events?

[emprworm]

Theories thrive on evidence. What evidence can support its supernature? When a phenamenon occurs, and a scientist deems it supernatural, how can he support this claim? In truth, he'd be shot down by the harsh critiques of his peers, which happens with any theory that can't hold its ground.

Actually, it could be an alien with immense technology that places the planet there, we have no idea. The scientists wouldn't jump to conclusions, like you want them to do. Just because it is amazing what they saw, does not mean it is supernatural. They will study it, and possibly never come up with an answer. However, if one brings up that a god did it, how does he support it? By the argument of incredulity? That's fallacious.

Also, that's certainly an extreme, however science branches out to many different areas - should there be an option of a supernatural cause in every area? Going away from the extreme side, how does one formulate a theory and properly support it with minor events?

the limitations on science.  I already stated that science is limited to that which pertains naturally to our universe.    Science cannot touch a supernatural event.  Why do you keep necessitating that it does?  If atheist Peter Atkins is correct, and we live in a multiverse, science in this universe could never explain the supernatural interaction of our nature with another nature.  Yet if hardcore irrational atheists Demand that all events within our universe are natural in origin, then they do so foolishly and without reason.

What scientific reason do you have to demand that all events in our universe are natural in origin?

[Acriku]

So, if science cannot "touch" supernatural phenomena, then why are you arguing that atheist scientists rule out the supernatural? They have no choice!

[emprworm]

because they define science as such- that all events in the universe are within the grasp of science.  and i am pointing out that such a view is illfounded.  Science does not demand that all events are natural.

[Inoculator9]

What in the hell is an "atheist scientist?" You act as if there is a guild or something :P

For one, atheists take the assumption that there is no supernatural, because that which is supernatural is an aspect of natural science as of yet undiscovered.

Two, why would a universe other than ours be unnatural?

How do you know what science demands emprworm? Science is an abstrect umbrella concept that humans use to explain things... as a result of that, anything could be made science by anyone :P

[emprworm]

Two, why would a universe other than ours be unnatural?

uhhh...because its not part of our universe? 

duh.

[Inoculator9]

Of course that's the only point you address....

Now, by seperate universes... are you suggesting that they exist as a multiverse in which each one is unique, or seperate universes that are based on more subtle differences?

[emprworm]

Of course that's the only point you address....

Now, by seperate universes... are you suggesting that they exist as a multiverse in which each one is unique, or seperate universes that are based on more subtle differences?

explained in the original post.

[Inoculator9]

Ok.... bubba. I'm sure the fact that you've been posting here for god knows how long totally supports your claim to not having time to repeat yourself.

Since I had time to check back, I did, and it's the multiverse theory, eh? So... explain to me in laymens term why anything other than our universe isn't natural by our terms? What if the physics are exactly the same, but different sets of galaxies, etc, are the only differences?

Unless of course when you say natural, you mean it as an accepted scientific term applying only to things within our universe? Which it isn't.

[emprworm]

Ok.... bubba. I'm sure the fact that you've been posting here for god knows how long totally supports your claim to not having time to repeat yourself.

Since I had time to check back, I did, and it's the multiverse theory, eh? So... explain to me in laymens term why anything other than our universe isn't natural by our terms? What if the physics are exactly the same, but different sets of galaxies, etc, are the only differences?

Unless of course when you say natural, you mean it as an accepted scientific term applying only to things within our universe? Which it isn't.

well maybe the physics of another universe ARE exactly the same...but why would you suppose so?  You have evidence to support that?

The truth is, since a seperate universe may have laws that are completely contrary to ours...there is nothing in science that could possibly account for it.  When we practice science, it is only relevant to our nature, our laws, our universe.  A universe where gravity repels would NOT be natural to our universe, where we have a gravitational constant.  To us it would look like magic, since it would not abide by our natural laws.  Hence, it is supernatural.  If a universe that exists outside our own is natural, then so would God be natural.

but then  'natural' no longer has any meaning, so we must therefore refer to natural stricly as it pertains to our universe.

[Inoculator9]

Gravity that repels would not be gravity :P

And why should we assume other universes aren't like ours? It's a leap to believe anything to either affect, since we have no realistic proof supporting anything regarding any of this.

[emprworm]

Gravity that repels would not be gravity :P

And why should we assume other universes aren't like ours? It's a leap to believe anything to either affect, since we have no realistic proof supporting anything regarding any of this.

we shouldn't assume any law about another universe.  Doing so is speculation.  IN another universe, planets might repel each other.  Fine, it wouldn't be called gravity, but it wouldn't behave as our universe would.  Heck, there might not even be planets or atoms.  Point being: science is completely restricted to our universe, and should never assume all events are natural.

[Inoculator9]

Natural is a very flexible term, that if used correctly, can expand to include anything you can call unnatural. That's they way science works, regardless of individual beliefs.

[emprworm]

Natural is a very flexible term, that if used correctly, can expand to include anything you can call unnatural. That's they way science works, regardless of individual beliefs.

fine.  as I said in my original post, if you define natural in such an expanded way, then if God exists, He too is natural.  Supernatural does not exist, then.  Heaven would be natural....so the parting of the red sea would be natural.

[Inoculator9]

Unfortunately I don't consider any of that in my argument because I don't believe any of it exists. Until you can prove it does, there is no logical reason to include it in consideration of scientific arguments.

[Acriku]

fine.

[emprworm]

And if he is natural, so what? He's just another being in the natural universe. Sure, he loses his aura of being above all other things, but then again he may just be an alien with an ego problem.

natural has no meaning then.  and neither does supernatural.  defining natural as "all that exists" means that if God exists, the supernatural does not.

it is a rediculous definition of natural...one that neither educated atheists or theists would ever ascribe to.

[Acriku]

The way I see it, is that whatever happens in nature means that it is allowed to happen in nature by the laws of nature and therefore is natural. Sure, this may get rid of the idea of "supernatural" but then again what was the use of it before? To distinguish between phenomena that come from another realm and phenomena that are from this realm, right? I don't think there needs to be a distinction, because whenever people think a certain phenomenon to be supernaturalm, they haven't had much success in actually supporting their assertions. Of course, you can always find another word to distinguish them.

[Dude_Doc]

If God exists, what would be the point of having other universes? Our universe is big enough for other species as well, with the hope that they are friendly :) ...

[danielsh]

Thank you, Inoculator9, for pointing out the vast and absurd generalizations upon which emprworm is basing his entire argument. Let's summarize: first, the definition of terms:

* Natural - "That which is according to the laws and existence of and within our universe."

A rather puzzling definition---or, rather, series of definitions. If "natural" is to mean "according to the laws of our universe," then a hypothetical deity is automatically supernatural (contrary to some of your statements, empr). If it is to mean "existing within our universe," then that's a different story. It looks like that was the intended definition, so we'll go with that.

* Scientific - "That which is explainable according to natural laws."

Okay, using the definition of "natural," we can interpret this as "explainable according to the laws existing within our universe."

* Supernatural - "Non-natural."

This is a major no-no. For one thing, it's rather like defining "dog" as "non-cat." Definitions should not be negative statements. For another thing, it makes the assumption that "natural" is a static and permanent state. Under this definition, anything which science has yet to explain becomes supernatural; therefore, before Gregor Mendel, traits were passed from parent to child supernaturally. Before Johannes Kepler, planetary motion was supernatural. And, since science has yet to explain your multiverse theory, Atkins' theories are supernatural.

What you fail to define adequately are "Atheist" and "true scientist." The definition of Atheist is fairly simple, and can be derived from the word: non-theist. That is, one who does not believe in God. Your use of the expression "true scientist" is a logical fallacy, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by