Scientific evidence for the supernatural

Conversation Side Conversation
41

I disagree with this statement, but regardless,

Big bang cosmology does not imply that statement. For the Big Bang cosmology model, there was no “points” in which spacetime does not exist. The very idea of it is ill defined.

I think this just pushes the problem backwards - where does the quantum vacuum, and indeed where did the laws of physics come from.

Blue sky is evidence that sky-creating magic pixies like the color blue though, at least in the Bayesian sense - which is how modern scientists process data. However, when taken together with other evidence, the probability of the magic pixie model being true becomes unlikely compared to the probability of scattering models being true.

2 Likes
42

It is not unsupported interpretation. You are merely denying the validity of the support.

43

You’re still dodging.

How are those things you listed scientific evidence for the supernatural as opposed to merely natural things we don’t fully understand yet?

It’s not a difficult question unless you have no answer.

1 Like
44

I am pretty up to date on cosmoslogy, I have seen no discussion of a point when matter, energy, time and space didn’t exist.

45

“My religious text claims it is true!” doesn’t qualify as valid empirical support.

1 Like
46

Well, you’d need to explain to me why exactly you object to my positing a supernatural cause as the best explanation of the observations in question? Otherwise I have no idea what you mean by dodging the question.

47

We are talking about events consistent with an M.O. described in that text, events related in that text, as well as the existence of events elsewhere consistent with that M.O.

48

You can posit until the cows come home. You claimed to have lots scientific evidence of the supernatural. If you wish to retract that statement, fine.

1 Like
49

Speaking of forensics, it would be worth your while to check out Cold Case Christianity, written by a forensics expert.

50

(…and/or Forensic Faith, by the same author.)

51

LOL! I heard about that one. An ex-police detective turned born-again decided he could “prove” all of Christianity was literally true by using police detective “scientific” methods. Too funny! Where do you find these guys?

4 Likes
52

The seat of a mocker is not one to be sitting in. If you didn’t dismiss it a priori, you might learn something.

53

Well, until you or someone else can explain to me why it’s invalid or unwarranted for me to posit a supernatural cause for observations that you yourself acknowledge are beyond or at least hard to be accounted for by present know natural explanations, I believe I am warranted to hold to my claim. If you can’t, as far as I can tell, no matter what you try to accuse me of, I don’t see any point in responding any further to what seem to me baseless assertions. Until then, thanks for the exchange. :slight_smile:

54

I’ll accept your admission you have no scientific evidence for the supernatural, direct or indirect evidence, and were just blowing smoke. Thanks for playing. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
55

If you don’t want your “science” to be mocked don’t post such idiotic things as a police detective using police detective tactics to “prove” Christianity.:slightly_smiling_face:

56

He presents evidence and rationales, he doesn’t ‘prove’ Christianity. You are misinformed and your mistaken bias is showing.

57

Your idea of “evidence” is very different from that accepted by the scientific community.

1 Like
58

My idea of truth is well-founded, however. Yours is not.

59

I know. Your religious text is true because it says it’s true. More power to you if you find that bit of circularity satisfying. Most others don’t.

1 Like
60

You have overlooked the rest of reality (like the fact that the Carpenter from Galilee speaks to climate change/global warming, mentioned earlier, and that the universe had a beginning).