The Modern Materialist


#65

Perhaps English is a second language.
In which case nevermind.

Yes science can only explain things within a framework of regularity. Yes, most people see natural laws operating regularly and consistently in all places…so you seem to deny your own regularity principle by positing a unique levitation place where they dont.

Your regularity principle also means science cannot explain or solve 1 off problems or unique incidents …like levitation.

It seems you finally agree afterall.
Or to be consistent and regular you must deny levitation actually happens.


#66

Agree with what? The levitation is either random or it is not. In the second case there exist a set of laws of nature which can formulate the behavior of the system at the point.


#67

That’s a very weird point of view, and it isn’t held by any scientist I’ve ever encountered. I’d say that the scientific method is the best approach to solving any problem, but there is no scientific or philosophical justification for the claim that science can solve every problem.


#68

You may have forgotten the original question. Lets recap:

You’ve provided a lot of meaningless sentences that seem to boil down to:
“Unknown natural laws that don’t operate anywhere else on earth operate at this levitating monk’s monastery and laws that operate everywhere else don’t operate there.”

That to me is worse than meaningless because:

  1. It purports to explain what we already know (or dont know in this case).
  2. It is unreasonable even in what it says from a scientific perspective because:
  • Science assumes laws of nature work universally and everywhere (which is why they are called “laws”). You just broke that philosophic/methodic principle of science.

  • Also, a far simpler “explanation” in accord with science would likelybe the one I provided above. Viz, no laws are suspended in this location as you opine. Rather all laws of nature are true laws and apply always and everywhere. Rather, an unknown law of nature that is applicable everywhere is being used by this monk in this place which seems to contradict the law of gravity but it doesn’t. Just as I explained above re iron boats floating and metal airplanes flying.

In short your “scientific explanation” is not only a somewhat meaningless explanation, it isnt even good science.


#69

Sorry, but to me your explanation doesn’t make any more sense than STT’s does. Your explanation seems to be that we accept levitation at face value, and then posit the existence of some indemonstrable law of physics that can’t be replicated nor explained.

The most likely explanation would seem to be the one that you want to dismiss, and that is that no levitation actually took place. If you wish to have a reasoned dialogue with a skeptic then that argument can’t simply be dismissed. At which point it either becomes an examination of the evidence, or the two parties simply agree to disagree, which was likely to be the outcome from the beginning.


#70

If you reread my posts you will find you are mistaken.

As STT clearly accepts levitation in this discussion I am following on from there as the current point of debate.


#71

I dont dismiss it.
I only dismiss skeptics who make a universal principle out of your statement that levitation did not take place. They usually do so subtley by means of their definition.
What is your definition of levitation?


#72

Which is pretty much my original observation when STT opined science can solve any real problem!
ie deny the problem, or deny its real.

So thats a meaningless non falsifiable assertion isnt it.
Which all of us here know except for “true believer” scientists.


#73

This claim is the result of observation. It can be falsified.

That unknown law of nature is in act locally so you are not saying more than what I said.


#74

If you accept that there is a philosophic principle/method of science called “laws of nature” (which you seem to as you use the term) then you have clearly contradicted them in your method of finding an explanation.
My approach does not.

Yes the principle is sort of falsifiable (this single levitation must “prove” all the laws of nature that worked everywhere for the last 2000 years of recorded history are false/suspended at this monastery). I suggest though that this begs the question…it is more likely the levitation is in accord with natural laws if no explanation spiritual or material can be discerned as yet. And even then a natural explanation must always be preferred to a spiritual if evidence is inconclusive either way (Occam’s Razor).

That unknown law of nature is in act locally so you are not saying more than what I said.

Yes my unknown law, I submit, must act universally (yours doesnt) … in harmony with all lesser laws.

Yes I agree that apart from the beginings of a method to explain…my scientific approach explains no more than yours.

But then that is what I have been saying all along isnt it - “science cannot solve everything”
You seem to have forgotten that was the point of this discussion… “solve levitation!”

This has yet to be adequately explained by science (and religion for that matter) as far as I know.


#75

I meant that former laws of nature could be falsified if we see any deviation in it therefore I am not contradicting myself.

Your approach is not different from mine.

The spiritual world is also subjected to its own laws. Even God acts according to laws so called Omniscience.

Again, what you are suggesting is not different from mines. You call the formal laws of nature as the lesser one.

Your method is equal to mine.

Science can solve everything. Even Gods act is subjected to laws, as I mentioned omniscience.

There is eventually no need for religion since science ultimately can answer everything.


#76

You think a true case of levitation falsifies the law of gravity?
I think that is nuts. No its not a contradiction , its nuts. I dont constantly worry afterwards that I might float away, nor would you.

Then you havent understood what I stated above.
Have a reread and come back to me if you still cant see it.

I have no idea what you are on about and why it furthets or relates to the current points sorry. No please dont try and explain.

You clearly stated universal laws do not work at the place of levitation. You also stated some new law does but not elsewhere. That is not my position. Have a reread.

Yet you seem unable to even get off the ground here and explain levitation.
I cannot either, but then I dont pretend to.

I see you changed your original extreme position with the word “ultimately” :thinking:


#77

Yes, a true case of levitation can falsify the law of gravity locally. A true case of levitation means that either gravity is not in charge or another force get involve in the situation.

Are you saying that the gravity is in charge but another force get involve in the situation?


#78

You have now contradicted your original position. I suggest you carefully reread your original view to us.

It seems time to end this “discussion”.
If you only now read/understand what I clearly proposed numerous times above then either your english or your comprehension skills and not really adequate for a philosophic conversation sorry.


#79

No. I am just explaining that how levitation is possible from point of view of person who knows a little about physics. As I mentioned there are only these two options.


#80

Whatever you say then.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.