Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural). |
Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.
|
That does not require the discarding of science or the supernatural. Rather it requires that the laws of physics we use are not eternal.
For one thing they are confined to our universe, for another in the earliest moments of the universe mathematical models show that the current laws of physics would not have held anyway. Where everything came from does require further study and explanation but it certainly doesn't require science to accept the supernatural.
So no, that example doesn't hold true for the requirements I gave you.
|
To assume that they are not constant would be contradictory to our pretended observation of them being constant. In that instance would it be discarding the assumption of the trustworthiness of empiricism.
|
That's factually incorrect if the math works out as Rath said; empiricism can be trusted now, but it wasn't the same in the first picosecond (or whatever) of the universe.
|
This is a pretended* observation, apart from today's mathematical models.
In any event, empiricism does not attempt to find if every single instance in the universe conforms together. Rather, it makes many observations, then extrapolates from that.
*possibly
|
...
Look, I thought your objection was about the fact that the beginning of the universe acted in violation of the laws of physics, so a person trying to be totally consistent HAD to discard science/accept supernatural interference.
So Rath's counterargument was that math/science can ACCOUNT for the laws of physics being different at the very beginning of the universe but not today. Not necessarily PROVE that it DID happen a particular way, but show that it was possible for it to happen in a way that is harmonious with known science. (So a person can have a consistent view in that way without accepting supernatural interference.)
It seems to me that he was successful, and that you have yet to give an example like the one he asked for, and which you apparently thought you could provide.
|
Again, we are talking about a pretended well-established observation (which, in this case, is that the laws of physics are constant). If it is true that science and math can demonstrate counter-observations, than that would not be a well-established observation, which is what my hypothetical scenario requires.
