Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

2PhiloVoid · Jan 10, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
"All" seems a bit exclusive, just need to find one "counter" and the answer must be "no". That won't be me. If some one make a supernatural claim that impacts the physical world it could be tested ("I can move Mt. Everest with telekinesis", "we can cure cancer with prayer", or "this spell turn teenage boys in to toads"). Other supernatural claims that don't impact the physical world ("your soul will go to hell") can not.

Personally, I think you're treading into Philosophical Naturalism rather than staying squarely withing Methodological Naturalism in saying this.

I'm not sure how one can accurately and effectively test for Christian "supernaturalism" being that the Bible is open to so many avenues of critical study and interpretation. One would have to absolutely know that their own interpretation of some identified section of the Bible, or of some one Christian's singular supernatural claim, is correct.

Hans Blaster said:
(And science is a secular pursuit, so "secular scientist" is redundant and implies there are other kinds of science.)

True. Just be sure that as a scientist, and as someone who identifies as "secular," you stay on your own side of the demarcation line.

..... unless of course you're actually wanting to ply yourself as a polymath.

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not sure how one can accurately and effectively test for Christian "supernaturalism" being that the Bible is open to so many avenues of critical study and interpretation. One would have to absolutely know that their own interpretation of some identified section of the Bible, or of some one Christian's singular supernatural claim, is correct.

But isn't that Kylie's point?

She's [incorrectly] saying that Jesus told us how to test our faith:

Simply employ mind over matter, and God will respond accordingly.

AveChristusRex · Jan 10, 2025

AV1611VET said:
But isn't that Kylie's point?

She's [incorrectly] saying that Jesus told us how to test our faith:

Simply employ mind over matter, and God will respond accordingly.

I know this is self-evident, but I do want to point to Luke 22:42: "Not my will, but yours be done" and Matthew 6:10: "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Moreover, Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted." The idea that "mind over matter" guarantees a divine response conflates faith with magical thinking, which is explicitly condemned in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

The belief that God must act based on our thoughts or desires is presumptuous and forgets the difference between Creator and creature. This is pride, and "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2025

AveChristusRex said:
I know this is self-evident, but I do want to point to Luke 22:42: "Not my will, but yours be done" and Matthew 6:10: "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Moreover, Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted." The idea that "mind over matter" guarantees a divine response conflates faith with magical thinking, which is explicitly condemned in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

The belief that God must act based on our thoughts or desires is presumptuous and forgets the difference between Creator and creature. This is pride, and "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).

Excellent post!

Hans Blaster · Jan 10, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Personally, I think you're treading into Philosophical Naturalism rather than staying squarely withing Methodological Naturalism in saying this.

Um, no. I said claims with physical impact could be tested, those that interact with the known physical universe. If someone wishes to claim there was a massive worldwide flood since the invention of writing, then we can use various secular methodologies including sciences like geology and archeology, as well as, the historical record to identify evidence (or as it is the case, lack there of) for this claimed flood. Nothing about studying causes and effects in the physical world requires and assumption that only natural things exist as such a flood would be a physical thing without a physical cause. What we get in response is the notions like this thread that the physical evidence is *also* removed (to leave no trace) by the untestable supernatural means. It remains for the recipient of such claims to accept or not accept them, but we can certainly say that there is no *scientific* evidence of such a flood.

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not sure how one can accurately and effectively test for Christian "supernaturalism" being that the Bible is open to so many avenues of critical study and interpretation. One would have to absolutely know that their own interpretation of some identified section of the Bible, or of some one Christian's singular supernatural claim, is correct.

Most of the claimed supernatural events in the Bible are untestable because they took place in the past, but some of them probably could be tested if they occurred today. How could you test the claimed resurrection of Lazarus? Presumably he died later, but what would a positively identified tomb show in his bones about having once been dead and then undead for a bit? Miraculous conceptions, oil lamps, food supplies, healings, revelations, dream visions, etc. None of these things leave a trace that could be found today to be subject to testing. Souls and spirits presumably continue to exist, but remain undetectable, so no claims related to them could be tested.

2PhiloVoid said:
True. Just be sure that as a scientist, and as someone who identifies as "secular," you stay on your own side of the demarcation line.

I don't identify as "secular", I am an atheist. Secular is for institutions and activities, not people. Using "secular" as your "religious/faith" identity is a cop-out. If someone doesn't believe in god they are an atheist and it would be good if they at least admit it to themselves, if not to others. (If someone needs "cover" they can always say

2PhiloVoid said:
..... unless of course you're actually wanting to ply yourself as a polymath.

I am a man of many talents.

River Jordan · Jan 10, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Do all secular scientists agree with you on this point, Kylie?

I don't. I haven't commented on this because it's really just a thought exercise with no implications for actual day to day science.

But since we're effectively talking about scientifically testing God, the answer is no, it can't be done. That's because God, by definition, can do absolutely anything imaginable, including rerouting time and creating false realities.

So when someone notices God says his followers can move mountains, it isn't an empirical test of God to see if any mountains have been moved. It could be that we don't know God's standards for a follower, it could be that some followers did move mountains but God supernaturally hid it all, it could be that God changed His mind, and so on.

No matter what outcome we get, the answer can always, always be "God just made it look that way" and there's no empirical means to determine if that's true or not.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 10, 2025

AV1611VET said:
But isn't that Kylie's point?

She's [incorrectly] saying that Jesus told us how to test our faith:

Simply employ mind over matter, and God will respond accordingly.

Well, she's wrong.

BCP1928 · Jan 10, 2025

truthpls said:
Testable by who? The hundreds of people that saw and talked to Jesus after He rose from the dead had evidence. Do you think that because silly little old naturalonly science cannot deal with it, that it vanishes in reality?

Anything that happens in the natural world is potentially testable, in principle. In the case of the resurrection of Christ, there is no testible evidence available to us, only unverifiable eyewitness accounts (which is why we take the whole thing on faith) No autopsy report, no blood samples, no DNA. The CSI team or Abby with her lab would have made short work of it because it was a potentially testable event--because even though it had a supernatural cause it happened in the material world..

BCP1928 · Jan 10, 2025

River Jordan said:
I don't. I haven't commented on this because it's really just a thought exercise with no implications for actual day to day science.

But since we're effectively talking about scientifically testing God, the answer is no, it can't be done. That's because God, by definition, can do absolutely anything imaginable, including rerouting time and creating false realities.

So when someone notices God says his followers can move mountains, it isn't an empirical test of God to see if any mountains have been moved. It could be that we don't know God's standards for a follower, it could be that some followers did move mountains but God supernaturally hid it all, it could be that God changed His mind, and so on.

No matter what outcome we get, the answer can always, always be "God just made it look that way" and there's no empirical means to determine if that's true or not.

Well, if there are no suddenly moved mountains then there is no testable evidence.

BCP1928 · Jan 10, 2025

truthpls said:
Try to understand that science only sees and deals with the natural. They could see the physical event that was caused by God, but would not see His hand behind it. They might see a man that was healed of cancer, but would not give God the glory for the healing. They would dig in their little bag of natural only possible causes, and grab something there.

Because it is impossible for God to manipulate natural causes to cure cancer?

River Jordan · Jan 10, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Well, if there are no suddenly moved mountains then there is no testable evidence.

But we don't know if those mountains moved and God just hid it from the view of all but the true believers, or wiped the memories of everyone, or reverted time and did something that way.

All of those are within the skill set of God, which is precisely why God is not scientifically testable. There's is absolutely no outcome that can't be explained by "that's just how God made it look".

2PhiloVoid · Jan 10, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Um, no. I said claims with physical impact could be tested, those that interact with the known physical universe. If someone wishes to claim there was a massive worldwide flood since the invention of writing, then we can use various secular methodologies including sciences like geology and archeology, as well as, the historical record to identify evidence (or as it is the case, lack there of) for this claimed flood. Nothing about studying causes and effects in the physical world requires and assumption that only natural things exist as such a flood would be a physical thing without a physical cause. What we get in response is the notions like this thread that the physical evidence is *also* removed (to leave no trace) by the untestable supernatural means. It remains for the recipient of such claims to accept or not accept them, but we can certainly say that there is no *scientific* evidence of such a flood.

Sure. I agree. But it's not those sorts of historically based phenomena that Kylie was citing: no, she was citing that "having faith to move mountains" is testable scientifically, even experimentally.

And I think you and I know this is erroneous for two pertinent reasons, one of which I already mentioned earlier.

Hans Blaster said:
Most of the claimed supernatural events in the Bible are untestable because they took place in the past, but some of them probably could be tested if they occurred today. How could you test the claimed resurrection of Lazarus? Presumably he died later, but what would a positively identified tomb show in his bones about having once been dead and then undead for a bit? Miraculous conceptions, oil lamps, food supplies, healings, revelations, dream visions, etc. None of these things leave a trace that could be found today to be subject to testing.
Souls and spirits presumably continue to exist, but remain undetectable, so no claims related to them could be tested.

Tell Kylie that.

Hans Blaster said:
I don't identify as "secular", I am an atheist. Secular is for institutions and activities, not people. Using "secular" as your "religious/faith" identity is a cop-out. If someone doesn't believe in god they are an atheist and it would be good if they at least admit it to themselves, if not to others. (If someone needs "cover" they can always say

Ok. then.

Hans Blaster said:
I am a man of many talents.

Indeed, you are.

truthpls · Jan 10, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Anything that happens in the natural world is potentially testable, in principle.

Jesus rose from the dead in the natural world. Then He ascended into heaven. Your test results?

BCP1928 said:
In the case of the resurrection of Christ, there is no testible evidence available to us, only unverifiable eyewitness accounts (which is why we take the whole thing on faith) No autopsy report, no blood samples, no DNA.

There was no Autopsies back then, not applicable. Not like He would have allowed it anyhow. Sounds like you want to play god

BCP1928 said:
The CSI team or Abby with her lab would have made short work of it because it was a potentially testable event--because even though it had a supernatural cause it happened in the material world..

His body walked through walls, vanished and appeared etc. Test that? Be serious. Admit that science piddles only in the natural only puddle.

truthpls · Jan 10, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Because it is impossible for God to manipulate natural causes to cure cancer?

The bible saw the blind healed instantly. Not natural. He rose from the dead. Not natural. He walked on water. Not natural. Etc. I am sure God could do many things. That does not mean He does. He could have fashioned a hook and caught one fish at a time for Peter. He could have saved up His money and bought wine for the wedding. Etc

BCP1928 · Jan 10, 2025

truthpls said:
Jesus rose from the dead in the natural world. Then He ascended into heaven. Your test results?

Any forensic evidence that may have once existed is now lost, so there is nothing to test now. Your position seems to be that there never was any.

truthpls said:
There was no Autopsies back then, not applicable. Not like He would have allowed it anyhow. Sounds like you want to play god

The point is, an autopsy would constitute evidence. Don't forget, we are talking hypothetically. Jesus was never even pronounced dead by a competent authority, Nowadays executed prisoners are routinely autopsied.

truthpls said:
His body walked through walls, vanished and appeared etc. Test that? Be serious. Admit that science piddles only in the natural only puddle.

OK, now I get it. You're a Docetist. Why didn't you say so in the first place? You wouldn't expect to find any evidence of Jesus' physical presence on Earth at all, not so much as a footprint on the road to Emmaus.

truthpls · Jan 10, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Any forensic evidence that may have once existed is now lost, so there is nothing to test now.

So science cannot test the supernatural.

BCP1928 said:
Your position seems to be that there never was any.

There never was that was in the power of unbelieving men and never will be.

BCP1928 said:
The point is, an autopsy would constitute evidence.

No that would constitute something impossible for man to ever do. You don't get to dissect God.

BCP1928 said:
Don't forget, we are talking hypothetically. Jesus was never even pronounced dead by a competent authority, Nowadays executed prisoners are routinely autopsied.

He was pronounced dead by the most competent authority on earth. A Centurion, whose business and expertise was death

BCP1928 said:
OK, now I get it. You're a Docetist. Why didn't you say so in the first place? You wouldn't expect to find any evidence of Jesus' physical presence on Earth at all, not so much as a footprint on the road to Emmaus.

No idea what that is supposed to mean. The point was that Jesus is God and that what man could do to Him was under strict control. His way was to believe and then we get evidence. Man's way is to demand evidence first.

BCP1928 · Jan 10, 2025

truthpls said:
So science cannot test the supernatural.

Not in that case, no. It's too late.

truthpls said:
There never was that was in the power of unbelieving men and never will be.

So you are a Docetist. That's fine, but it means we will have to find another example to discuss.

truthpls said:
No that would constitute something impossible for man to ever do. You don't get to dissect God.

I guess not, if you don't believe He had a real physical body while on Earth.

truthpls said:
He was pronounced dead by the most competent authority on earth. A Centurion, whose business and expertise was death

An army officer is not usually considered to be competent as a medical examiner.

truthpls said:
No idea what that is supposed to mean. The point was that Jesus is God and that what man could do to Him was under strict control. His way was to believe and then we get evidence. Man's way is to demand evidence first.

We believe without evidence. That's why it's called "faith." But you wanted scientific testing and scientific testing requires evidence to examine.

truthpls · Jan 10, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Not in that case, no. It's too late.

Not in any case ever.

BCP1928 said:
So you are a Docetist. That's fine, but it means we will have to find another example to discuss.

I am a believer. If you want to toss around 14 dollar words for those of us that realize that Jesus could have raised His little finger and slaughtered every soldier of Rome, fine. The only power they had over Jesus was what He gave them. No more. Herod would not be allowed to kill Him. The Jews would not be allowed to kill Him before His time etc

BCP1928 said:
I guess not, if you don't believe He had a real physical body while on Earth.

? The risen body was physical as well as spiritual. Before that He had a regular body. But that does not mean poor little natural science would be allowed to cut up His dead body, or etc

BCP1928 said:
An army officer is not usually considered to be competent as a medical examiner.

Dare to say that in ancient Rome and see the response!

BCP1928 said:
We believe without evidence. That's why it's called "faith." But you wanted scientific testing and scientific testing requires evidence to examine.

No I was not the one pretending science covered the supernatural.

Kylie · Jan 10, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Do all secular scientists agree with you on this point, Kylie?

I don't see why not, if the claim about the supernatural gives some testable prediction.

Observation: People pray.
Question: Why do people pray?
Hypothesis: People pray because they believe it will aid them, such as in recovery from illness, guidance in difficult times, etc.
Prediction: Prayer will allow people to move mountains, as claimed by Jesus in Matthew 17:20.
Experiment: Get people to pray for a mountain to move, and see if it happens.

Now we just have to wait for the results!

Kylie · Jan 10, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Step ø: Send letters of warning to all those on and around Mt Everest (climbers, the Sherpas, base camp staff, logistics companies, tourists, et alii) to stand clear of the mountain beforehand, and pray they understand and comply.

(Would you?)

If anyone would happen to die in this "very easy test," send a letter to their next of kin and tell them they gave their lives so that academia could test a claim made by Jesus in the Bible, and that they were forewarned.

Or better yet, thank God that He refused to cater to such a thoughtless academic attempt to verify His word; and in so doing, saved many lives in the process.

Are you suggesting God would not be able to preserve the lives of these people while the mountain was moved?

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

I learned to "count"!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Unapologetic Marianite

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

I learned to "count"!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I learned to "count"!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads