The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.
That seems to cover everything. Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?
11 comments
Wrong. All the NATURAL alternatives are not supernatural, therefore able to be evaluated according to the laws of physics and mathematics. Hell, they searched for explanations and formulated the Big Bang theory because they had natural physical phenomena that pointed the way to it.
The only supernatural one in the pile is the god story (or rather, one of many god-stories from many gods.) We have no physical evidence for that so we disregard it. Feel free to pick up the search when you find some evidence.
I don't really know what he meant by "range of alternatives". Either the universe or at least some kind of space/multiverse was "always" there (my favorite explanation and it doesn't exclude a Big Bang either) or a supernatural event created it or a natural event we don't understand or perhabs can't even comprehend did that. Just because most of these are not easily (perhabs not possibly) investigated scientifically doesn't mean they have to be supernatural. They could still be perfectly natural phenomena that are just out of our reach for the moment. Ancient greece didn't have access to microscopes, but that doesn't mean illnesses were supernatural in origin then.
Oh and what is the circularity of scientism? Sounds like someone went to a few (!) philosophy classes and misunderstood everything to fit it into his world view. Pay more attention to philosophers not agreeing with you. That's were the interesting debates start.
EDIT: In light of the comment above me I want to clarify that I'm not talking about the Big Bang (which does have physical evidence for it), but what came "before" it in a sense. The "start" of it you might say. As far as I know there are theories for what exactly happened at this... moment, but nothing we could falsify at the moment.
OK, let's say the universe was created via supernatural action. Why should we accept Genesis as true as opposed to any of the other thousands of stories of creation that have been made up by people over recorded and non-recorded history?
Why is it so difficult to understand that those stories came about when the tribe was sitting around the fire and someone said, "How do you think we got here? What causes rain? What happens when we die?"
Scientism? No, I don't want to talk to you/ For one thing, I'm tired of you idiots bastardising the language like this: It offends me that some of the OPs here can run on, sometimes for 500-1000 words or more, without citing a single, verifiable fact while at the same time accusing their detractors of being part of some shiny new "ism" they made up to contain that portion of their ideological opponents.
Care to disagree with you? Yes...on semantic grounds alone. It doesn't matter what I believe regarding the existence of a prime mover. You can't play it so high-handed when you don't got shit to back you up. As in, you have NOTHING that rises to the level of proof.
Circularity of scientism=reality is real.
Try learning anything about anything while denying the reality of reality.
@Thinking Allowed
Emotionally it means "I am butthurt because atheistic science produces talking smartphones
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
