Why Limit Science To Natural Causes? ...

Why Limit Science To Natural Causes? And Who Said It First?

There are 65 comments on the Forbes.com story from Jun 15, 2014, titled Why Limit Science To Natural Causes? And Who Said It First?. In it, Forbes.com reports that:

Over at 3 Quarks Daily , Paul Braterman has an interesting series debating the merits of a key aspect of the scientific method in light of the creationist/evolution debate.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Forbes.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#1 Jun 15, 2014
I believe that science MUST necessarily be limited to natural causes.

Why?

Simply because if one does not look for (the) natural one will not be able to find the true source.

And if one is not seeking to find the true source, why search at all; to find lies?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#2 Jun 15, 2014
Because it is science.

You might as well could ask why baking bread is limited to dough.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#3 Jun 15, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I believe that science MUST necessarily be limited to natural causes.
Why?
Simply because if one does not look for (the) natural one will not be able to find the true source.
And if one is not seeking to find the true source, why search at all; to find lies?
I'll go out on a limb here and wager all seventeen of your comments are incoherent.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#4 Jun 15, 2014
Fair enough.

But that a particular science is limited to the natural does represent a limitation.

That being said, as long as the scientific method and the faculties of reason are reliable; the only things preventing one from investigating a particular phenomena is one's own will, disposition or lack of resources.

*lights a cigarette*

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#5 Jun 15, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll go out on a limb here and wager all seventeen of your comments are incoherent.
okay.

But why stop there?

Go ahead and present evidence for your claim.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#6 Jun 15, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I believe that science MUST necessarily be limited to natural causes.
Why?
Simply because if one does not look for (the) natural one will not be able to find the true source.
And if one is not seeking to find the true source, why search at all; to find lies?
Why limit science to natural? There is a lot about natural we don't understand. Science is limited to man and what man knows.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#7 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Why limit science to natural? There is a lot about natural we don't understand. Science is limited to man and what man knows.
I agree.

The issue a person faces when talking about God, especially when science and proof is involved is getting people to accept that.

Sometimes it is we as creationists (or creatards as I love to hear them say, it sounds "hyper"), who should accept the limits of our ability to know and discover.

Realism, one of the philosophies which justify or support scientific method fails us or can be ignored when it comes to the true nature of reality.

Why?

Because we cannot know anything about the world unless our bodies tell us. The only thing we can ever know is what can affect the senses.

No matter what is flying around us and hopping and skipping and bubbling; we will never know unless it can affect our body.

And even when it can affect our bodies, it is by the equality within our reasoning that gives us the power to make sense of the world.

All man can ever have is faith.

What he calls knowledge is nothing more than a strong conviction.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#8 Jun 15, 2014
Quantum theory is the physics of the supernatural.
everythingimportant.org/naturalism

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#9 Jun 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Because it is science.
You might as well could ask why baking bread is limited to dough.
Fair enough.

But that a particular science is limited to the natural does represent a limitation.

That being said, as long as the scientific method and the faculties of reason are reliable; the only things preventing one from investigating a particular phenomena is one's own will, disposition or lack of resources.

*lights a cigarette*

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#10 Jun 15, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Quantum theory is the physics of the supernatural.
everythingimportant.org/naturalism
I tend to agree.

Physics (from classical to contemporary) is metaphysics, and I will show you why.

The principle of the conservation of energy states: "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed."

What are the implications of that assumption?

That which cannot be created nor destroyed has no beginning nor end; and is by definition, eternal and infinite.

Now this cannot be scientifically proven, as all attempts to create a physical perpetual motion machine have failed. Why:

Because "...no system without an EXTERNAL energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings." [Wikipedia.com]

Now whereas one attempts to study matter and energy (and matter is energy: e=mc^2) he IS necessarily embarking upon a study of the metaphysical.

Even so, physics MUST develop to include the metaphysical. Why?

Because the physical universe had a beginning, therefore it was influenced by factors and conditions beyond it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#11 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Fair enough.
But that a particular science is limited to the natural does represent a limitation.
That being said, as long as the scientific method and the faculties of reason are reliable; the only things preventing one from investigating a particular phenomena is one's own will, disposition or lack of resources.
*lights a cigarette*
In restraint the master reveals.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#12 Jun 16, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Quantum theory is the physics of the supernatural.
everythingimportant.org/naturalism
CABOODLE.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#13 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to agree.
I do not.
It is caboodle.
Especially Zog's beloved Feynman will find it caboodle too.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Physics (from classical to contemporary) is metaphysics, and I will show you why.
The principle of the conservation of energy states: "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed."
What are the implications of that assumption?
COMPLETELY CABOODLE.
The principle of the conservation of energy has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments both in chemistry and physics - if not in the thousands.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
That which cannot be created nor destroyed has no beginning nor end; and is by definition, eternal and infinite.
Now this cannot be scientifically proven, as all attempts to create a physical perpetual motion machine have failed.
JC what a crap.
The fact that "which cannot be created nor destroyed has no beginning nor end" is CONSEQUENCE of the principles of the conservation of energy.
SINCE WHEN do we need to prove for a principle by its CONSEQUENCES?
The fact that numerous attempts to create a physical perpetual motion machine have failed is EXACTLY experimental evidence for the law itself.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "...no system without an EXTERNAL energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings." [Wikipedia.com]
Now whereas one attempts to study matter and energy (and matter is energy: e=mc^2) he IS necessarily embarking upon a study of the metaphysical.
NON SEQUITUR.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even so, physics MUST develop to include the metaphysical. Why?
Because the physical universe had a beginning, therefore it was influenced by factors and conditions beyond it.
MAYBE.
But IN REALITY physicist say: beyond the Planck epoch WE JUST DON'T KNOW with our current framework.

You may invoke EVERYTHING you like.
From the onset of the big bang science pretty well knows what's going on WITHOUT metaphysics. And there is NOTHING urging us to leave the common framework of science in pursuit to fill up the gaps that we don't understand yet. ON THE CONTRARY.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#14 Jun 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
...
COMPLETELY CABOODLE.
The principle of the conservation of energy has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments both in chemistry and physics - if not in the thousands.
<quoted text>
ok lets say that it has been...
TurkanaBoy wrote:
JC what a crap.
The fact that "which cannot be created nor destroyed has no beginning nor end" is CONSEQUENCE of the principles of the conservation of energy.
SINCE WHEN do we need to prove for a principle by its CONSEQUENCES?
Since the validity of the principle depends on the accuracy of predictions formed from the principle.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
The fact that numerous attempts to create a physical perpetual motion machine have failed is EXACTLY experimental evidence for the law itself.
It may be argued so.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
...
But IN REALITY physicist say: beyond the Planck epoch WE JUST DON'T KNOW with our current framework.
You may invoke EVERYTHING you like.
From the onset of the big bang science pretty well knows what's going on WITHOUT metaphysics.
But if you have limited the scope of your investigation to the exclusion of the metaphysical; you will only know half the facts.

And then the value of those facts will be questionable, since they represent only a fraction of the physical.

People like me usually include the source of a thing in our investigation of the thing; just for the sake of variety. LOL!

And guess what? The origin of the physical is metaphysical in nature.

...all you know is what you think you need to know.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
And there is NOTHING urging us to leave the common framework of science in pursuit to fill up the gaps that we don't understand yet. ON THE CONTRARY.
Duh!

The framework in which your philosophies and thoughts develop tends towards gross materialism; so you naturally wont value anything beyond it.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#15 Jun 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
... The principle of the conservation of energy has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments both in chemistry and physics - if not in the thousands.
I wish to challenge that suggestion.

How do the demonstrations verify that energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

You cant have it both ways.

You cant deny the metaphysical its rightful place in science then hitch a ride on an a concept which implies eternity; and that is what it appears is being done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I believe that science MUST necessarily be limited to natural causes.
Why?
Simply because if one does not look for (the) natural one will not be able to find the true source.
And if one is not seeking to find the true source, why search at all; to find lies?
Because your alternative doesn't pass the scientific method.

That's why everyone knows that you're talking bullshit.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#17 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You cant deny the metaphysical its rightful place in science
You're right.

The "metaphysical" never HAD any rightful place in science.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#18 Jun 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because your alternative doesn't pass the scientific method.
That's why everyone knows that you're talking bullshit.(shrug)
Scientific method depends on my method.

The aim of scientific method in case you didnt observe, is to arrive at validity by equality (consistency).

It is ONLY THE EQUALITY or consistency in a theory, hypothesis and experimentation which allows us to conclude on anything positively to any degree .

Scientific method may be described as 'the formalization of common sense': it suggests a method of applying common sense (which is the ability to identify equality/sameness).

Christ encouraged men to "try/test these spirits to see whether they are of God..."

It is obvious that evidence allows the mind to be more confident in assumptions made.

And it is obvious that the more consistency/repetitive an event is; the more you can be positive about the factors that influence it.

Try not to trip over your arrogance so often, child.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#20 Jun 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
... The principle of the conservation of energy has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments both in chemistry and physics - if not in the thousands...
Firstly, the wording of the law of conservation of energy is self contradictory:

If something cannot be created nor destroyed it WILL NOT demonstrate a change. Why?

Because creation and destruction are points of change.

Hence it is as if you are saying "energy cannot be changed, it only changes form"; which is not meaningful.

FACT:
whatever was never created has no beginning and whatever cannot be destroyed has no end; and it therefore eternal.

FACT:
There is no way to "test" physically that physical phenomena is eternal. Why?

The only way you will be able to conclude with certainty that anything is forever physically, is to live forever; repeatedly confirming it with testing. And that is not a human capacity.

FACT:
You as a simple man cannot conclude on the eternity of anything, without relying on logic .
No physical experiment performed in a man's life time can give him concrete proof that anything is eternal.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#21 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Scientific method depends on my method.
The aim of scientific method in case you didnt observe, is to arrive at validity by equality (consistency).
It is ONLY THE EQUALITY or consistency in a theory, hypothesis and experimentation which allows us to conclude on anything positively to any degree .
Scientific method may be described as 'the formalization of common sense': it suggests a method of applying common sense (which is the ability to identify equality/sameness).
Christ encouraged men to "try/test these spirits to see whether they are of God..."
It is obvious that evidence allows the mind to be more confident in assumptions made.
And it is obvious that the more consistency/repetitive an event is; the more you can be positive about the factors that influence it.
Still waiting for you to back yourself up by demonstrating how invisble Jew wizards pass the scientific method.(shrug)
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Try not to trip over your arrogance so often, child.
You owe me a fortune in new irony meters.

But I'll accept explanations as an alternative.

So far you have none.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Just_Parker 197,629
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Patrick 13,425
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr ChristineM 31,433
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr ChromiuMan 151,061
This is how christians fumble up the evolution ... Mon zxx838557 1
Rome Viharo debunks evolution Sun Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
More from around the web