David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor

[Calybos]

Does a random, causeless event perfectly fit the normal definition of "supernatural"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer: No, it doesn't. It may fit YOUR personal definition of "supernatural" because you want there to be some magic in the universe... but no, science does not equate 'uncaused' with 'supernatural' at all. Any more than it equates 'entropy' with Kali-Ma, Goddess of Destruction and Renewal. Mysticism is simply not part of science.

Do yourself a favor, Bryan, and try to LEARN some science before you criticize it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yeah...I think you're a lost cause. When you're at the point where you state that "the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in" COSMOLOGY, I don't think there's any hope for you--you have no understanding of what is and isn't science.

I'm done with you--you're obviously way too out there to convince, and unwilling to learn. I'm sure you have much better luck convincing uneducated slobs with your smooth talk, but it's not working here. Your time would be better spent elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I'm done with you". Read: I can't keep up with Bryan, he's too smart for me.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Tom,

  You are right on target but be careful 'cause this swamp is full of gators waiting to snap off a limb or two .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stix, you don't have the brains to hang out here, you're in over your head. Stix with Sesame Street.

[Guest Guest]

You can't overflow a glass on all sides (a.k.a. 'flood' it) when it is 75% full, no matter how you move the water around.

Likewise, there is simply not enough water on the planet to cover all the land. Not only that, but even if it _was_ possible, the fact remains that there is zero evidence of such an event ever having happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look genius;

A global flood does not have to cover every last piece of land to be considered a global flood.

You really have no proof of what the surface of the earth was like when it came into existence. It may have been one large land mass surrounded by water.

When the moon was in a very close orbit to the earth the tides were over one hundred times higher than they are now.

Strong enough localized gravity could overflow your glass on all sides.

[Guest Guest]

Answer: No, it doesn't. It may fit YOUR personal definition of "supernatural" because you want there to be some magic in the universe... but no, science does not equate 'uncaused' with 'supernatural' at all. Any more than it equates 'entropy' with Kali-Ma, Goddess of Destruction and Renewal. Mysticism is simply not part of science.

Do yourself a favor, Bryan, and try to LEARN some science before you criticize it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you give us your specific science background please.

[Bryan]

QUOTE(Bryan @ Jan 25 2007, 05:50 PM)

I do?

What did I write that gave you that idea?

Be specific.

QUOTE(Bryan)

There are only so many cosmological options, and the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in that group.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should have looked up the term "cosmology" before you stuck your foot in your mouth again, Strife.

the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmology

Science is very probably incapable of providing a comprehensive account of cosmology. Thus, philosophy takes over where science breaks down.

And here's a little bit from your friend Wikipedia on "physical cosmology" so that you can better attempt to keep the two distinct in your mind in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

So, your supposed foundation for claiming that I think that theology is science has utterly broken down.

Got anything else you wish to offer before the apology?

[Bryan]

You can't overflow a glass on all sides (a.k.a. 'flood' it) when it is 75% full, no matter how you move the water around.

Likewise, there is simply not enough water on the planet to cover all the land. Not only that, but even if it _was_ possible, the fact remains that there is zero evidence of such an event ever having happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Newsflash, Strife: The earth isn't shaped like a glass. It's roughly spheroid. On the surface of a spheroid there are many ways to get a coating of water to cover the whole thing.

[Bryan]

Answer: No, it doesn't.

Why not, lest we mistake your argument for a baseless assertion?

Supernatural

of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

It's as though you've never even considered that inherent problem of explaining randomness through lawful processes.

Try to think of just one lawful process that generates true randomness (and quantum particle formation is thought by scientists to be truly random).

It may fit YOUR personal definition of "supernatural" because you want there to be some magic in the universe...

Really, Calybos, your tendency to sink to this type of technique is rather pathetic.

I have proposed no "personal definition" at all. Unless you wish to credit me with corrupting dictionaries all over the world with "my" definition (I just climbed aboard my black helipcopter, black crayon in hand, and altered all those dictionaries during a three week period early last year ...).

If "natural" includes the random and causeless, then "natural" seems to be a term that applies to all things, or at least we could say that it refers to all "real" things.

And that would be a perfect case of begging the question as to the existence of the supernatural (or supernatural events).

Taken at face value, "natural" as it is normally defined in philosophical terms has exceptions were non-lawful behaviors are observed.

You're welcome to try to absorb random events into your conception of "natural" but once your definition has no coherent exceptions, the term becomes effectively useless (as does its counterpart, "supernatural").

You don't want to acquire a reputation for favoring nonsense terms, do you?

but no, science does not equate 'uncaused' with 'supernatural' at all.

Are they in denial, then?

The definition seems to force them to acknowledge random events as "supernatural" (according to its normal definition) unless they equivocate.

Any more than it equates 'entropy' with Kali-Ma, Goddess of Destruction and Renewal. Mysticism is simply not part of science.

Why do you automatically equate "supernatural" with "mysticism" when the dictionary offers a perfectly legitimate way to use "supernatural" without invoking "mysticism"?

Rigid thinking, much?

Do yourself a favor, Bryan, and try to LEARN some science before you criticize it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Calybos, I very probably know much more science than you do.

Beware of compounding the effect of making yourself look foolish (like when you explain how I'm using some "personal definition" of "supernatural").

[Calybos]

Why not, lest we mistake your argument for a baseless assertion?

By your own definition, "supernatural" means unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Uncaused events are both natural and explainable, therefore not supernatural.

Seriously, Bryan, you're straining too hard to make room for theist magic in science, and it's just not gonna happen. Science is based on methodological naturalism; all things are examined on the basis of natural laws and natural explanations, including uncaused events. "Supernatural" is not an option.

[Strife767]

Newsflash, Strife:  The earth isn't shaped like a glass.  It's roughly spheroid.  On the surface of a spheroid there are many ways to get a coating of water to cover the whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only way to make all the water cover all the land would be to somehow suspend the water in a layer in mid-air (and what would be under the water? Air? A vacuum?) that just happens to be 'floating' at a level above all the land. And I'd defy you to show how that would be physically possible--unless you have some other equally-ridiculous scenario.

[Stixx3969]

Stix,  you don't have the brains to hang out here, you're in over your head. Stix with Sesame Street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently I've upset the gator. Why so defensive? What have I done to you? In your response, please include a copy of your credentials so that I may know specifically why I don't belong here and you do.

[Guest bewildered]

Boy, now I'm really confused. Guest said "A global flood does not have to cover every last piece of land to be considered a global flood."

But Bryan says "On the surface of a spheroid there are many ways to get a coating of water to cover the whole thing."

I love it when the fundies can't even keep their story straight.

And, cosmology has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life changed, i.e., evolved since life began.

[Bryan]

By your own definition, "supernatural" means unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Uncaused events are both natural and explainable, therefore not supernatural.

rofl

I see. So, when I ask you for the scientific explanation for random formation of quantum particles, you simply reply "nothingdiddit" and abracadabra! we've got Science.

That's hilarious.

Nothingdiddit is not a scientific explanation, no matter how fervently you might hope otherwise.

Seriously, Bryan, you're straining too hard to make room for theist magic in science, and it's just not gonna happen.

Because you'll dodge the issue with complete nonsense no matter how tightly you get painted into a corner?

Nothingdiddit! That explains it!!!

Priceless.

Science is based on methodological naturalism; all things are examined on the basis of natural laws and natural explanations, including uncaused events.

rofl

And you can explain what "uncaused events" has to do with natural law? What is it, the law of randomness? You don't recognize a contradiction when you see one?

Verily, you are clueless on this one. But at least you're funny.

"Supernatural" is not an option.

Thus, all things are natural, and the question of the supernatural is begged.

We can rule out the supernatural, since it doesn't exist.

Jesus walks on the water? No sweat. Science has the answer: "Nothingdiddit."

Water into wine? What could be simpler: "Nothingdiddit."

A universe appears out of nothing? That's no problem, either: "Nothingdiddit."

With this new science-of-the-gaps, there's nothing science cannot explain--since science can always appeal to nothing as the explanation.

And just think of the predictive power of this new science!

"We knew we wouldn't be able to predict it accurately, since it's random. We were able to predict the randomness itself, however."

What were you saying about me needing to learn about science?

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/explanation.htm

True randomness is precisely that which defies lawful explanation in principle (not merely in fact).

It is complete nonsense to propose lawful randomness or a law-based explanation for randomness or uncaused events. Uncaused events are only amenable to scientific observation, not to scientific explanation.

"We think we know how nothing caused X" is a nonsense statement where "nothing" is other than something.

[Bryan]

The only way to make all the water cover all the land would be to somehow suspend the water in a layer in mid-air (and what would be under the water? Air? A vacuum?) that just happens to be 'floating' at a level above all the land.

What's this, the old "saying it makes it so" trick?

A unified land-mass with a strong gravitation pull located perpendicular could totally flood, in principle. Make the mountains as high as you want: It could still happen with sufficient gravitation.

And I'd defy you to show how that would be physically possible--unless you have some other equally-ridiculous scenario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, an omnipotent God is limited to methods that you find reasonable?

[Guest Guest]

Newsflash, Strife:  The earth isn't shaped like a glass.  It's roughly spheroid.  On the surface of a spheroid there are many ways to get a coating of water to cover the whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GEN 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. GEN 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

[Bryan]

GEN 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. GEN 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A little over 20 feet (15 cubits), from whatever the baseline is supposed to be in the passage. Normal water levels?

But we were talking about the mere possibility of a global flood, not the specific flood of Noah. Thanks for pointing out that passage, regardless.

[Bryan]

Boy, now I'm really confused.  Guest said "A global flood does not have to cover every last piece of land to be considered a global flood."

But Bryan says "On the surface of a spheroid there are many ways to get a coating of water to cover the whole thing."

I love it when the fundies can't even keep their story straight.

We're not working on the same story. Get a clue.

I'm talking about the basic possibility of water covering every bit of land on the planet, regardless of the Bible text (since one argument against the Bible account has been that a global flood is "impossible"--without elaboration on the latter term).

In terms of the normal use of language, yes a global flood need not cover every bit of land. For example, "the town of Springville was completely flooded" denotes extensive flooding of the town of Springville, but it leaves open the possibility of patches of elevated land since such statements are rarely intended to be absolute.

And, cosmology has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution explains how life changed, i.e., evolved since life began.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that comment is intended to address what?

[Calybos]

I'll try it once more, Bryan, and then I'll accept that you simply don't want to listen.

Randomness is not supernatural; it's simply random, no more. Are dice supernatural because the results of rolling them are random? Of course not. Is the Heisenberg Principle proof of supernatural forces at work? Obviously not. Are uncaused events proof of supernatural entities? No, actually, they're not.

You're still trying to make room for magic in a realm where it's not useful or usable: science. You'll notice I said that science operates by methodological naturalism; that means that only natural events and processes are considered. Nowhere does science claim that gods and magic are not permitted to exist--only that they're not within the realm of science and cannot be part of a scientific theory.

Ironically, the "this explains everything" attitude you're so worried about is the epitome of WHY religion isn't allowed within the borders of scientific activity: because once you open the doors to "god did it" as an explanation, all inquiry becomes meaningless. Uncaused events are a question mark; they exist, and the forces that give rise to them are under study. But accepting a "supernatural" explanation is thoroughly useless.

That's why you'll never hear about supernatural stories in a science classroom; because it has no more place there than the quadratic formula does in a survey of English literature.

At least TRY to understand this, okay? Because if you still can't figure it out, we really need to work on our public education system. Obvious lightweights like 2dim and "patriot" are one thing, but you seem to have a halfway functional brain. Please prove that it can accept and process new knowledge.

[ElneClare]

rofl

I see.  So, when I ask you for the scientific explanation for random formation of quantum particles, you simply reply "nothingdiddit" and abracadabra! we've got Science.

That's hilarious.

Nothingdiddit is not a scientific explanation, no matter how fervently you might hope otherwise.

Because you'll dodge the issue with complete nonsense no matter how tightly you get painted into a corner?

Nothingdiddit!  That explains it!!!

Priceless.

rofl

And you can explain what "uncaused events" has to do with natural law?  What is it, the law of randomness?  You don't recognize a contradiction when you see one?

Verily, you are clueless on this one.  But at least you're funny.

Thus, all things are natural, and the question of the supernatural is begged.

We can rule out the supernatural, since it doesn't exist.

Jesus walks on the water?  No sweat.  Science has the answer:  "Nothingdiddit."

Water into wine?  What could be simpler:  "Nothingdiddit."

A universe appears out of nothing?  That's no problem, either:  "Nothingdiddit."

With this new science-of-the-gaps, there's nothing science cannot explain--since science can always appeal to nothing as the explanation.

And just think of the predictive power of this new science!

"We knew we wouldn't be able to predict it accurately, since it's random.  We were able to predict the randomness itself, however."

What were you saying about me needing to learn about science?

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1001/explanation.htm

True randomness is precisely that which defies lawful explanation in principle (not merely in fact).

It is complete nonsense to propose lawful randomness or a law-based explanation for randomness or uncaused events.  Uncaused events are only amenable to scientific observation, not to scientific explanation.

"We think we know how nothing caused X" is a nonsense statement where "nothing" is other than something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, how can you claim to have an answer to questions that physicist are still puzzling over to try to find a rational theory to explain quantum physics?

Most physicist will amitt they don't understand the work being done in Particle Physics and Quantum Theory.

I once had the chance to talk to a NASA scientist at a World SF Convention Party about the subject and he was amazed that I showed so much understanding that few in his field had. Only answer to which I can suggest is that as a visual learner, I know I'm able to picture ideas that are hard to put in words. I unfortantly didn't have a chance to finish the conversation, as I had to leave suddenly having found out my mom died during the night.

The best ideas to explain how in quantum mechanics a particle can suddenly appear out of nowhere is the multi-universe or dimensions. In such a partical can suddenly disappear from one dimension or universe and suddenly appear in another. Why I have no real understanding of the math behind the work being done at this level, I know from my reading, that the US is currenltly working on building a super computer using quantum theory.

Try reading A Shortcut Through Time: The Path to the Quantum Computer by Greoge Johnson. The science behind it is sound, since it's been proved in a lab using a modifed FMRI machine.

I must thank you though for making me look up the book on amazon, for now I have several more books I look forward to reading on the subject.

KOTW Note: A link to the book is available above in the Announcement Section.

[Bryan]

Bryan, how can you claim to have an answer to questions that physicist are still puzzling over to try to find a rational theory to explain quantum physics?

I claim to have an answer to questions that physicists are still puzzling over to try to find a rational theory to explain quantum physics?

That's news to me. Where did I say that, ElneClare?

Most physicist will amitt they don't understand the work being done in Particle Physics and Quantum Theory.

Correct. They call the generation of quantum particles "truly random" and refer to them as "uncaused." That's fine with me. The problem is people like Calybos who appear to insist that a law of randomness is waiting in the wings.

Heh. I just took a peek at his next installment in his defense of random law.

I once had the chance to talk to a NASA scientist at a World SF Convention Party about the subject and he was amazed that I showed so much understanding that few in his field had.  Only answer to which I can suggest is that as a visual learner, I know I'm able to picture ideas that are hard to put in words.  I unfortantly didn't have a chance to finish the conversation, as I had to leave suddenly having found out my mom died during the night.

I'm sorry to hear that (the part about your mom).

I'm not sure how your conversation with the NASA physicist helps in the current situation unless you're about to expound helpfully on the topic.

The best ideas to explain how in quantum mechanics a particle can suddenly appear out of nowhere is the multi-universe or dimensions.  In such a partical can suddenly disappear from one dimension or universe and suddenly appear in another.  Why I have no real understanding of the math behind the work being done at this level, I know from my reading, that the US is currenltly working on building a super computer using quantum theory.

Wouldn't it be a bummer if God were in one of those other dimensions?

Until the other-dimensional entities are confirmed in some fashion, they are the equivalent of God in terms of science.

Try reading  A Shortcut Through Time: The Path to the Quantum Computer by Greoge Johnson.  The science behind it is sound, since it's been proved in a lab using a modifed FMRI machine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...n=&pagewanted=1

Doesn't look applicable to the current discussion, but it looks interesting.

I must thank you though for making me look up the book on amazon, for now I have several more books I look forward to reading on the subject.

No problem.

As they say at Faber: "Knowledge is good."

[Bryan]

I'll try it once more, Bryan, and then I'll accept that you simply don't want to listen.

Something (beyond even the fact that you haven't quoted me) tells me that you're going to completely ignore my arguments after I've addressed each of yours.

Which one of us isn't listening?

Randomness is not supernatural; it's simply random, no more.

How do you know that?

Are dice supernatural because the results of rolling them are random?

The roll of dice is not truly random (as is quantum particle formation).

Am I going to have to explain extremely simple stuff to you, or what?

Ever heard a physicist refer to the literal roll of dice as "uncaused"?

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~aaron/blog/archives..._virtues_of.htm

Of course not. Is the Heisenberg Principle proof of supernatural forces at work? Obviously not. Are uncaused events proof of supernatural entities? No, actually, they're not.

So, listening to you, as you put it, involves simply accepting what you say even though you have absolutely no coherent argument in support.

Fascinating.

The issue the point at which "natural" in terms of metaphysical naturalism starts to break down. If, for example, every event in the universe were uncaused, there would be no way to begin to correlate and collect information (unless uncaused events perfectly mirrored--by coincidence--causation).

You, Calybos, are unwilling to admit that any phenomenon is, in principle, incapable of being explained in terms of natural lawful processes, even if this requires you to believe in a law of randomness (which is absurd).

Until you deal with that point, you're just flapping your gums.

You're still trying to make room for magic in a realm where it's not useful or usable: science.

Straw man.

If science is interested in describing reality as it is, then science should be prepared to deal with the potential existence of non-natural phenomena (albeit not in terms of explanation).

Otherwise, science becomes an apologetic for philosophical naturalism.

You'll notice I said that science operates by methodological naturalism; that means that only natural events and processes are considered.

Responsible scientists, not coincidentally, do not claim to have a scientific explanation for random (uncaused) generation of quantum particles. If the particles are truly uncaused, science has reached a limit on its ability to explain.

But Calybos will keep insisting that it isn't so, even if he heard it in person from the angel Gabriel.

Nowhere does science claim that gods and magic are not permitted to exist--only that they're not within the realm of science and cannot be part of a scientific theory.

And why are you telling me this? Have you mistaken it for something relevant?

A. Naturalism: the philosophical belief that what is studied by the social and physical sciences is all that exists (and the need for any explanation going beyond the universe is denied).

1. The understanding of the universe requires no supernatural cause.

If science can count "nothingdiddit" as a natural cause, then all things are easily explained by science, including a wholly random universe (entirely absent secondary causation, IOW).

Falsfiability is thrown out the window. How can you prevent all kinds of nothing from contaminating your experiments? It could ruin everything!

Ironically, the "this explains everything" attitude you're so worried about is the epitome of WHY religion isn't allowed within the borders of scientific activity: because once you open the doors to "god did it" as an explanation, all inquiry becomes meaningless.

Which makes it even more hilarious that you don't see yourself doing it.

You didn't think my choice of words was accidental did you.

Hmmm. I guess "nothing" could have caused it, OTOH.

Uncaused events are a question mark; they exist, and the forces that give rise to them are under study. But accepting a "supernatural" explanation is thoroughly useless.

So, are you telling me that you have decided not to accept that science is able to explain uncaused phenomena?

That's why you'll never hear about supernatural stories in a science classroom; because it has no more place there than the quadratic formula does in a survey of English literature.

So, physicists should no longer teach their students that quantum particles are uncaused?

Or do you continue to maintain that referring to such particles as "uncaused" is a scientific explanation?

At least TRY to understand this, okay?

Rarely has condescension been so misplaced. Poor Calybos still doesn't realize that he has staked out a self-contradictory position for himself.

Because if you still can't figure it out, we really need to work on our public education system. Obvious lightweights like 2dim and "patriot" are one thing, but you seem to have a halfway functional brain. Please prove that it can accept and process new knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am I supposed to figure out that uncaused events are naturalistic or that uncaused events are not naturalistic?

You seem to have trouble figuring out which. Or maybe it's just that you're trying to dodge the central issue.

I believe that's your cue to dodge again by ignoring what I write and telling me that I'm not listening to you ...

[Calybos]

I figured you'd keep spinning and dodging, and you didn't disappoint.

So I'll sum it up in the smallest words I know, and then I'm done trying to penetrate your thick skull.

The word "supernatural" has no place in science. None, zero, nada. Period.

Uncaused events are a known phenomenon with a naturalistic origin, still under study. Which is why they belong to the realm of science. By trying to drag in the word "supernatural" under the cloak of these uncaused events, you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding, and contempt, of how science works.

Give it up. You will never shoehorn religion into the realm of science, and you're just embarrassing honest believers with the attempt.

[Bryan]

I believe that's your cue to dodge again by ignoring what I write and telling me that I'm not listening to you ...

I figured you'd keep spinning and dodging, and you didn't disappoint.

I figured you'd continue to avoid addressing what I wrote in favor of offering various fallacies in reply.

You selected poisoning the well as your lead strategy, I see.

So I'll sum it up in the smallest words I know, and then I'm done trying to penetrate your thick skull.

You'll probably just dodge the issue again. But at least you're committing an ad hominem fallacy in the process.

That's got to count for something!

The word "supernatural" has no place in science. None, zero, nada. Period.

... showing rather conclusively that you ignored this from my post:

Calybos:

You're still trying to make room for magic in a realm where it's not useful or usable: science.

Bryan:

Straw man.

If science is interested in describing reality as it is, then science should be prepared to deal with the potential existence of non-natural phenomena (albeit not in terms of explanation).

So which one of us is dodging, again?

You seem stuck on this straw man even though I point it out to you repeatedly.

Maybe your game is that you're trying to make everyone forget what you wrote?

"Now, YOU may choose to believe that uncaused events are automatically supernatural; heck, in the Bronze Age people believed that lightning was a supernatural event! Now, of course, we know better."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=3727&st=180#

Since when are uncaused events natural, according to any scientific understanding of the term?

"all things are examined on the basis of natural laws and natural explanations, including uncaused events."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=3727&st=200#

May we please have an example of a natural explanation for an uncaused event?

Just to show that it is possible to do, in principle?

Uncaused events are a known phenomenon with a naturalistic origin, still under study.

Huh?

Are you saying that uncaused events are events with causes that are as yet unknown?

That's not how physicists mean it in reference to quantum particle formation.

To a non-scientist such as myself, the term "naturalistic origin" seems to be a stand-in for "cause." You're saying that uncaused events have causes, it seems.

That doesn't seem just a little bit contradictory to you?

Or is there a special scientific understanding of "naturalistic origin" which includes the absence of origin?

Which is why they belong to the realm of science.

Good luck rescuing your explanation from incoherency (especially if you intend to run away to cut your losses).

By trying to drag in the word "supernatural" under the cloak of these uncaused events, you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding, and contempt, of how science works.

Baloney.

I'm simply pointing out that "uncaused" is not a useful scientific explanation. It does not fit the parameters of a scientific explanation in that it tells you nothing useful about quantum particles other than the fact that you won't be able to predict them based on causation.

In this manner, "uncaused" is a perfect analogy to a supernatural explanation in science.

And, in fact, this is exactly how science would handle things if Satan began to appear in the flesh intermittently to scientists all over the globe. They would probably find that they could not predict the evil one's arrival (unless he phoned in advance), so--in sticking with the methods of science--they would say that his appearance out of nothing was uncaused (unless they decided to use the equivalent term: supernatural).

You have no way to address this point, of course, so you non-rationally insist that I am proposing a supernatural entity as the cause of the "uncaused" event.

My point is more subtle than that, and you make yourself look foolish by avoidance of what I write in favor of what you imagine me to be saying.

Give it up. You will never shoehorn religion into the realm of science, and you're just embarrassing honest believers with the attempt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Case in point. I have said nothing that should reasonably be taken as offering a supernatural explanation as science. That, Calybos, is merely an invention of yours. One that you are compelled to resort to because you cannot address the real argument.

It should be entirely uncontroversial that scientists could, in principle, observe miracles, such as the sudden appearance of a giant dandelion next to the international space station.

They can say that the appearance of the dandelion was uncaused if they like, but that's not any more useful than saying Zeus put it there.

The same holds true with the formation of random quantum particles.

I suppose that's Calybos' cue to reconstruct the straw man so that he can try to knock it down in his next post.

[Guest A Christian]

I figured you'd keep spinning and dodging, and you didn't disappoint.

So I'll sum it up in the smallest words I know, and then I'm done trying to penetrate your thick skull.

The word "supernatural" has no place in science. None, zero, nada. Period.

Uncaused events are a known phenomenon with a naturalistic origin, still under study. Which is why they belong to the realm of science. By trying to drag in the word "supernatural" under the cloak of these uncaused events, you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding, and contempt, of how science works.

Give it up. You will never shoehorn religion into the realm of science, and you're just embarrassing honest believers with the attempt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take cover, rectum talk.

[Calybos]

I see the misunderstanding persists, and I'm just not a good enough teacher to show you how to correct it.

"Since when are uncaused events natural, according to any scientific understanding of the term?"

Uncaused events ARE natural; you're the one inisisting that causation is the key to describing something as natural rather than supernatural. There is no such requirement.

"To a non-scientist such as myself, the term "naturalistic origin" seems to be a stand-in for "cause." You're saying that uncaused events have causes, it seems."

No, I'm saying that causation (or non-causation) has no bearing on whether something is a natural phenomenon properly studied in the realm of science. "Uncaused" is neither supernatural, nor particularly troubling, in the discussion of physics, any more than multiple dimensions are troubling--no matter how counter-intuitive to everyday life they may seem.