exGreek
posted on Dec 22, 2007 - 10:04 PM
From mikokiko:Hey guys, I was having a discussion with an atheist and he brought up these points in the discussion and I was wondering how you guys would go about them. They are the following:
1) The scientific method is the way of looking at the entirety of the universe and testing it to see what it is, how it works, and so on.
[He is saying that believing in the supernatural is contrary to the scientific method]
2) The supernatural is not accounted for in any laws of physics, which are the pillars of every bit of understanding about the universe.
3) The supernatural would break every discovered physical property and law of the universe by definition.
4) No observable, testable "supernatural" or "paranormal" event has ever occurred. Ever.
Thanks
I'll answer these one-by-one:
1) I fail to see how this particular argument is even relevant. Unless he's trying to make the rather spurious argument that whatever is un-"proven" by the scientific method is false by definition. If that were the case, then more than half of every truth he knows would be false. For example, try to prove Fermat's Last Theorem by the scientific method. Prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon just by using the scientific method. Or prove that this arguer in question even exists using only the scientific method.
It's a rather convenient argument. For basically what he's doing is deciding that some arbitrary method of verifying truth is the only legitimate method. I could just as easily say that whatever cannot be proven by a syllogism is false by definition.
At any rate, I think people have deified the scientific method more than is warranted. There's no telling, for example, that tomorrow gravity will cease to exist, thus nullifying all of Newton's "proofs." From "so far, every object within the earth's graviational pull has been attracted towards it" it is a large jump to conclude from that that, "every object within the earth's gravitational pull will be attracted towards it". You cannot go from an "is" to an "ought".
Also, this argument could be viewed as nothing more than a statement of the obvious. The "super-natural", by definition, is beyond nature...therefore why should it be surprising that methods which study the natural fail to ascertain the existence of the super-natural?
2) The laws of arithmetic, logic, grammar, and sociology aren't accounted for in any laws of physics either. So what's his point?
3) Either this statement is wrong, in which case Q.E.D. he is wrong. Or this statement is right and is one more instance of why should we be surprised that the supernatural acts in ways that are not natural? Either way, he loses.
4) For one thing, he is flatly wrong. I can cite dozens of instances where the "paranormal" have been shown to take place within controlled environments (Department of Defense studies of ESP, etc., etc.). And if they didn't, this would not prove their non-existence. This would be a notorious example of trying to prove a "universal negative", which is impossible.
There are MUCH better arguments God's existence than the ones he chose. For example, the argument from the existence of evil, etc.
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 | Posts: 1381
Location: Spring Lake, Michigan
