Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Tassman]

I predict that at our deaths, each of us will discover that the supernatural DOES indeed exist.

Well, you will never know.

[Adrift]

When one sifts through the verbiage, we get to your highly speculative conjecture:

You're acting like his verbiage is that hard to sift through. It really isn't. Also, yes, his view is highly speculative conjecture. That's sort of the whole point. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's purposefully offering you a hypothesis for how a materialist like you might come to be more open to what some call the "supernatural". He isn't certain that this view is correct, but then, all he's attempting to do is meet you half way.

given that the different universes of the multiverse probably consist of differing sets of natural laws, some of these natural laws may seem supernatural from our perspective.

You're so fixated on this word "supernatural" and you've mentally defined it in such a way that it must be impossible. That it's akin to some sort of absurd, natural law breaking magic. But this fixation on your definition of supernatural is really missing oxmix's point. Most theologians (at least Christian theologians) believe that the supernatural is structured and ordered on a set of laws, even if they're not the laws we're familiar with.

NOT

I'm not necessarily on board with everything he's saying, but oxmixmudd is right to point out that all you're doing is creating arbitrary definitions in order to control the discussion. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of theologians who are totally happy to define the "supernatural" as "a different kind of natural". Heck, there are some on this very forum (Nick for instance), who are happy to say that there is no real distinction between the natural and supernatural, that it's all natural depending on your perspective, and that the word "supernatural" should be excised from the theologian's vocabulary, because all it does is confuse skeptics like yourself. So if your issue is really with the word "supernatural" then forget about that word, and use some other word that you can agree on. Make up a word if you'd like. Again, by fixating on that word, you're totally missing the point he's trying to express.

[Tassman]

You're acting like his verbiage is that hard to sift through. It really isn't.

Also, yes, his view is highly speculative conjecture. That's sort of the whole point. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's purposefully offering you a hypothesis for how a materialist like you might come to be more open to what some call the "supernatural". He isn't certain that this view is correct, but then, all he's attempting to do is meet you half way.

This highly speculative conjecture is all based on the assumption that God exists. This is the starting point for the likes of Oxy and you. But, since we have no evidence for that, the rest is commentary on an assumed entity and its wishes, more or less like trying to build a scientific basis for Santa Claus's existence.

You're so fixated on this word "supernatural" and you've mentally defined it in such a way that it must be impossible. That it's akin to some sort of absurd, natural law breaking magic. But this fixation on your definition of supernatural is really missing oxmix's point. Most theologians (at least Christian theologians) believe that the supernatural is structured and ordered on a set of laws, even if they're not the laws we're familiar with.

There is NO

I'm not necessarily on board with everything he's saying, but oxmixmudd is right to point out that all you're doing is creating arbitrary definitions in order to control the discussion. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of theologians who are totally happy to define the "supernatural" as "a different kind of natural". Heck, there are some on this very forum (Nick for instance), who are happy to say that there is no real distinction between the natural and supernatural, that it's all natural depending on your perspective, and that the word "supernatural" should be excised from the theologian's vocabulary, because all it does is confuse skeptics like yourself. So if your issue is really with the word "supernatural" then forget about that word, and use some other word that you can agree on. Make up a word if you'd like. Again, by fixating on that word, you're totally missing the point he's trying to express.

The word is not the issue; the reality behind it is the issue. AFAIK there is no logically coherent alternative to materialism.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know about others, but I find this very interesting. The truth is what I wrote is fairly simple and straight forward if one is familiar with some fairly basic computer science and more or less the layman's discussions that can be found concerning the multiverse on the Web and in astronomical and science periodicals. The fact you would consider that potentially purposed obfuscation rather than simply recognize you need to go do about 30 minutest to an hour of basic reading on the subject, that you can't recognize your confusion over what I wrote lies with your own lack of familiarity with the subject, goes to the heart of the demonstrated fact you are not open to the possibility your own skills or knowledge or reasoning might be flawed.

Jim

[Adrift]

I don't know about others, but I find this very interesting. The truth is what I wrote is fairly simple and straight forward if one is familiar with some fairly basic computer science and more or less the layman's discussions that can be found concerning the multiverse on the Web and in astronomical and science periodicals. The fact you would consider that potentially purposed obfuscation rather than simply recognize you need to go do about 30 minutest to an hour of basic reading on the subject, that you can't recognize your confusion over what I wrote lies with your own lack of familiarity with the subject, goes to the heart of the demonstrated fact you are not open to the possibility your own skills or knowledge or reasoning might be flawed.

Jim

It isn't even slightly obfuse. He's just so locked into his skepticism, that he won't even begin to try to understand why you're making the argument that you're making. For instance, he says that the "speculative conjecture is all based on the assumption that God exists", which, as far as I can tell, is again missing the point. Of course you're granting that God (or actually the "supernatural") exists! Your whole argument rests on the idea that if the supernatural exists, then this is a way that even a materialist might be able to come to terms with it. As far as I understand it, you're not attempting to provide evidence for the supernatural. If that's what you were doing, then of course it would be circular to assume your conclusion, but that's not what you've been arguing over these many many posts to begin with. That Tassman somehow missed that (or purposely refused to understand it) over x amount of pages....that he states things like "The word is not the issue; the reality behind it is the issue" pretty much demonstrates that he's not at all interested in anything you have to say on the subject. He's got his mind made up, and he's essentially doing the forum version of fingers in his ears and yelling "lalalalala".

[Tassman]

I don't know about others, but I find this very interesting. The truth is what I wrote is fairly simple and straight forward if one is familiar with some fairly basic computer science and more or less the layman's discussions that can be found concerning the multiverse on the Web and in astronomical and science periodicals.

Maybe but, more to the point, what you wrote is also highly speculative conjecture, which in itself is not based upon established science but on the unverified hypothesis of a multiverse.

What you seen to be arguing is that IF multiverse theory can be established then it is possible that each universe in the multiverse would have natural laws and constants different to those in our own universe. Furthermore, IF this is the case then some of these natural laws and constants might be so very different that they might appear to be supernatural to us. Furthermore, IFseemingly supernatural occurrences in our own universe.

Have I understood your argument correctly? This is the second time of asking.

[oxmixmudd]

Maybe but, more to the point, what you wrote is also highly speculative conjecture, which in itself is not based upon established science but on the unverified hypothesis of a multiverse.

What you seen to be arguing is that IF multiverse theory can be established then it is possible that each universe in the multiverse would have natural laws and constants different to those in our own universe. Furthermore, IF this is the case then some of these natural laws and constants might be so very different that they might appear to be supernatural to us. Furthermore, IFseemingly supernatural occurrences in our own universe.

Have I understood your argument correctly? This is the second time of asking.

Sigh.

I proposed two scenarios, not one, each addressing different claims you were making about the relationship between science and the supernatural. I hope you can understand the difference between showing the falsity of a truth claim and trying to create scientific hypothesis. Your statement above conflates the two scenarios into one, and treats them as some sort of hypothesis, which they are not.

Scenario 1: you claimed (as I understood you) that if the supernatural was real, if it existed, then it should be subject to scientific inquiry, it should be discoverable by some natural means.

I showed that if the multiverse version: 'simulated universe' was representative of what reality as we know it is, then what we call the supernatural could indeed be absolutely real but completely undiscoverable by natural means, because to discover what the supernatural 'is', we'd need to be able to somehow move outside the simulation itself. IOW, There is at least one known potential description or our reality consistent with existing scientfic hypthesis that allow for the supernatural to be real but completely undetectable. If you have any understanding of the nature of mathematical or philosophical proof, you will understand what my point is. If not, then I'm not sure I can help you to grasp what I'm getting at.

Scenario 2: you claim (again as I understand you) that nothing known scientifically would give rise to any hint of such a thing as the supernatural.

To be clear again: I am not proposing a scientific hypothesis. I am showing your claim is false logically. There is - in the hypothesis of the multiverse - under the conditions you try describe above - a hint of what the supernatural might be. Scientifically, given the multiverse is a legitimate scientic hypothesis, one cannot say science rules out the existence of the supernatural. And while the multiverse is speculative, there are also, in fact, a good many experimental results that are consistent with the idea. Bell's inequality has been mentioned. The 'cold spot' in the CMB that has been in the news lately another. So again, logically, the most one can say about science and the supernatual is that we don't know. But current science most certainly leaves open the possibility that what people experience and believe in is real.

Finally, you also resisted my claim that heaven and hell are in fact consistent with the idea of a multiverse. Part of that seemed to rest in some sort of specially qualified definition of the supernatural and heaven and hell. Adrift pointed out that Christian theology treats these as realities, universes by any other name, with a fixed set of 'natural' rules for them. If a multiverse consists only of variations to known constants producing our set of natural 'laws', then we could perhaps investigate what those would need to be to produce a place like heaven, or hell. That investigation could inform the scientific possibility of such places in that sort of multiverse. If a multiverse consists of all possible mathematical specifications for a universe, then we can be almost 100% certain such places do in fact exist.

But again even with this, the point is to show that your almost absolute assertions on the non-existence of these things is simply incorrect, overreaching. You can't make assertions like these and be consistent with what is known. To be consistent with what is known, you must make statements that are less strong. You have to limit yourself to some sort of 'maybe' as opposed to 'no-way'. 'no-way' is your belief. 'maybe' is what science indicates.*


Jim

*Notice the difference between this and YEC. Science says 'no-way' for YEC (in this universe anyway) clearly and emphatically.

[Tassman]

Sigh.

I proposed two scenarios, not one, each addressing different claims you were making about the relationship between science and the supernatural. I hope you can understand the difference between showing the falsity of a truth claim and trying to create scientific hypothesis. Your statement above conflates the two scenarios into one, and treats them as some sort of hypothesis, which they are not.

Scenario 1: you claimed (as I understood you) that if the supernatural was real, if it existed, then it should be subject to scientific inquiry, it should be discoverable by some natural means.

I showed that if the multiverse version: 'simulated universe' was representative of what reality as we know it is, then what we call the supernatural could indeed be absolutely real but completely undiscoverable by natural means, because to discover what the supernatural 'is', we'd need to be able to somehow move outside the simulation itself. IOW, There is at least one known potential description or our reality consistent with existing scientfic hypthesis that allow for the supernatural to be real but completely undetectable. If you have any understanding of the nature of mathematical or philosophical proof, you will understand what my point is. If not, then I'm not sure I can help you to grasp what I'm getting at.

Scenario 2: you claim (again as I understand you) that nothing known scientifically would give rise to any hint of such a thing as the supernatural.

To be clear again: I am not proposing a scientific hypothesis. I am showing your claim is false logically. There is - in the hypothesis of the multiverse - under the conditions you try describe above - a hint of what the supernatural might be. Scientifically, given the multiverse is a legitimate scientic hypothesis, one cannot say science rules out the existence of the supernatural. And while the multiverse is speculative, there are also, in fact, a good many experimental results that are consistent with the idea. Bell's inequality has been mentioned. The 'cold spot' in the CMB that has been in the news lately another. So again, logically, the most one can say about science and the supernatual is that we don't know. But current science most certainly leaves open the possibility that what people experience and believe in is real.

Finally, you also resisted my claim that heaven and hell are in fact consistent with the idea of a multiverse. Part of that seemed to rest in some sort of specially qualified definition of the supernatural and heaven and hell. Adrift pointed out that Christian theology treats these as realities, universes by any other name, with a fixed set of 'natural' rules for them. If a multiverse consists only of variations to known constants producing our set of natural 'laws', then we could perhaps investigate what those would need to be to produce a place like heaven, or hell. That investigation could inform the scientific possibility of such places in that sort of multiverse. If a multiverse consists of all possible mathematical specifications for a universe, then we can be almost 100% certain such places do in fact exist.

But again even with this, the point is to show that your almost absolute assertions on the non-existence of these things is simply incorrect, overreaching. You can't make assertions like these and be consistent with what is known. To be consistent with what is known, you must make statements that are less strong. You have to limit yourself to some sort of 'maybe' as opposed to 'no-way'. 'no-way' is your belief. 'maybe' is what science indicates.*

The Multiverse is defined as "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one"

[oxmixmudd]

The Multiverse is defined as "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one"

What part of logical argument verses scientific argument do you not understand?

[Sparko]

What part of logical argument verses scientific argument do you not understand?

It is amusing to watch the contorted lengths he will go to to not "get" the examples and hypotheticals brought to his attention. It is like he knows he is wrong but can't admit it so he goes to great lengths to come up with any way to reject or misunderstand what you were saying (and what I was saying), no matter how ridiculous or silly it ends up being.

[Teallaura]

Multiverse argument* - Sci Fi version:

1) Following the principle that every possibility exists in at least one dimension, it follows logically that in at least one dimension, the God of the Bible exists as described in Scripture.
2) Scripture describes God as being omni-present, omni-powerful and omniscient. God is present everywhere that exists. God is all powerful - there is nothing He cannot do. God knows everything - there is nothing unknown to God.
3) Therefore, God exists in all dimensions as the God of Scripture.
4) Ergo, God exists.








































































*based on the actual theorized versions of the multiverse, I do not see this argument working. But the sci-fi version is almost inevitably the 'there's a gagillion parallel dimensions and every possibility exists in at least one. In that framework, the argument works.

No, I'm not being serious - but this thread stopped relating to reality about ten pages ago...

[Duragizer]

this thread stopped relating to reality about ten pages ago...

Only ten?

[Teallaura]

Only ten?

Well, that I'm sure of - I did sleep through a few...

[Cerebrum123]

Multiverse argument* - Sci Fi version:

1) Following the principle that every possibility exists in at least one dimension, it follows logically that in at least one dimension, the God of the Bible exists as described in Scripture.
2) Scripture describes God as being omni-present, omni-powerful and omniscient. God is present everywhere that exists. God is all powerful - there is nothing He cannot do. God knows everything - there is nothing unknown to God.
3) Therefore, God exists in all dimensions as the God of Scripture.
4) Ergo, God exists.








































































*based on the actual theorized versions of the multiverse, I do not see this argument working. But the sci-fi version is almost inevitably the 'there's a gagillion parallel dimensions and every possibility exists in at least one. In that framework, the argument works.

No, I'm not being serious - but this thread stopped relating to reality about ten pages ago...

If I'm remembering it right this is very close to Anselm's argument for God. Instead of multiverse it posited "possible worlds". If God is in one "possible world" then He is in all possible worlds.

[Adrift]

If I'm remembering it right this is very close to Anselm's argument for God. Instead of multiverse it posited "possible worlds". If God is in one "possible world" then He is in all possible worlds.

Yeah, it's the Ontological Argument. What you're referring to I believe is Plantinga's reworking of Anselm's argument. I figured Teal knew about the argument, cause it's too close to be coincidence, but she's pretty darn brilliant, so maybe she tapped into some deep philosophy.