Timeline for Is the claim that atheism is the null hypothesis invalid because it applies a physical measurement to the metaphysical?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2020 at 19:54 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 31, 2017 at 19:56 | vote | accept | hawkeye | ||
| Apr 2, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | Conifold | The past matters to the extent that it still affects us, and I see no essential difference there between geology, paleontology and history as a social science. God matters to that same extent. Scientists would readily concede existence of unkonowable truths about the past, or that transcendent God is not ruled out by science, but neither are ancient aliens, parallel worlds, astral cords or the fount of youth. Few believers are content to keep him in that company. So theologians came to postulate access channels that science can not tap, like intellectual intuition or mystic revelation. | |
| Apr 2, 2016 at 1:32 | comment | added | hawkeye | Fair enough - my point is that scientific truth excludes historic claims. Can something be historically true but excluded from science? | |
| Apr 2, 2016 at 0:47 | comment | added | Conifold | Science splits chunks of phenomena into ever deeper seated pieces lurking behind appearances, exact combinations of which may never repeat. If God were one of such pieces he would be within its range. My point is that metaphysics that makes God both unknowable and relevant is extremely tricky. I do not see how changing obligation to opportunity affects anything, either the opportunity is explored or it is not, in which case we still have idle speculation. And science can look for explanations without predictions, e.g. in biology or psychology, it is not all mathematical physics. | |
| Apr 2, 2016 at 0:30 | comment | added | hawkeye | Could you expand on science not being bound by strict repeatability? (I get it for Geology - but not other sciences). Re the fishbowl - what if it were an enclosed self-sustaining ecosystem where there is no obligation for interaction (daily feeding) simply the opportunity? There are interactions, but not ones you can make predictions about. | |
| Apr 2, 2016 at 0:23 | comment | added | Conifold | You can not get out of it so easily. If there is no interaction whatsoever between the fish's bowl and the ant's nest then speculations about the latter are gratuitous, i.e. a waste of time. If there is such interaction then the fish is in a position to "measure" it, however indirectly. With you absolute separation of realms the only options you are offering God are to be non-existent or an idle speculation. And science is not bound by strict repeatability, such a thing is a fiction anyway, if the same God is supposed to keep interacting with us that in principle is repeatability enough. | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 23:27 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/716044467321577472 | ||
| Apr 1, 2016 at 18:32 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 17:59 | answer | added | James Kingsbery | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 11:53 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 11:20 | history | asked | hawkeye | CC BY-SA 3.0 |