feplus

I guess I will continue this conversation since Phoenix has jumped in. 1. Here is an example. If a god existed and created a universe that appeared eternal, that act of creation would not be observable. It still happened. 2. Science does not do epistemology. Science assumes empirical observation can produce knowledge. Any further claim falls under the purview of philosophy. 3. I would direct you to the link I provided earlier on thought experiments. The one I have offered assumes a physical law holds true absolutely if nature is left to its own devices, but a god intervenes and suspends this law. In that case, scientists can investigate the effects but not the cause (and causes are of course of interest to scientists). Because the cause is by definition unknowable to science, a miraculous explanation is compatible with science. What would it mean for this law to be "wrong"? It has always been true in the past. It will always be true in the future. One moment, a moment of divine intervention, is the sole point of exception. The initial law would be the closest thing to "right" without invoking the divine, something science cannot do. I believe you are falling into the same trap most science enthusiasts make, which is to equate science with scientism. I would prefer you not accuse those you disagree with of ignorance.

@blah, I am curious what sorts of speech you would prefer the government control. If the answer is hate speech, what is hate speech specifically and what comments would be grounds for state intervention?

I have explained many times that the natural law in question remains true assuming nature is left to its own devices. A god intervening does not change this fact. It is an "absolute except."

We are assuming the physical law is absolute except in miraculous instances. It is a thought experiment. It is designed to test what scientists would discover in the event that a proposed law was true but a god suspended that law. I explained this several times in earlier posts.

That problem was over a disagreement of definition. When I talk of natural laws being suspended, I am referring to those that govern material existence. You use a broader understanding of nature that encompasses supernatural existence. It would of course be absurd for a god to violate the principles of his existence, whatever those may or may not be. It would not be absurd for a god to suspend a law governing material reality (eg. conservation of mass) to bring about a miraculous event.

I have said repeatedly that science can examine miraculous results. It cannot examine a miraculous cause because that cause would be non-empirical. If supernatural beings are possible and science has nothing to say about their existence one way or another, because they do not "exist meaningfully" (i.e. empirically), then science and religion are by definition compatible. You have demonstrated my case for me.

But science does not apply to everything that happens. It deals strictly in empirical content. You are conflating nature and existence, and then you are assuming all existence is material. That is a bad definition and a specious claim.

Something outside of nature could interact with it. There is no conceptual contradiction there. If we define nature in part as "a set of principles that makes things possible to exist," that would include any supernatural as well as natural beings. The supernatural would become natural. This is a poor definition prima facie.

If you do not understand the purpose of a thought experiment then there is no sense in continuing this conversation. If you are interested in learning more I would recommend this SEP article as a primer.

This hypothetical does not deal with something that "seems" supernatural. It deals with something that is supernatural.

"Supernatural" is a clearly defined concept. Anything that exists beyond the natural world is supernatural. If you're suggesting the supernatural is "impossible," we don't need to have that conversation; this is not a scientific claim and has no bearing on the compatibility of science and religion. I don't know what bunk claims of previous centuries have to do with this conversation. If a physical law held true for all observations except one (not the case for those other examples), the law would be an "absolute except" and science would have nothing to say about the exceptional observation's cause.

Because it has nothing to do with nature. God is a supernatural concept / being.

I will respond to the above three posters at once. Science is inductive, and induction by definition cannot produce certain knowledge. When we talk about physical laws being "constant" or "absolute" or "unbreakable," what we really mean is that a great deal of observations have been made and all support / none contradict that law. An "absolute except" (I like that term Severian) is plausible. If a wide body of observations confirm a proposed law except in a single, seemingly miraculous instance, that law appears absolute except. If nature does not allow this law to be broken when left to its own devices, we were not wrong about what "nature allows." We were correct but a god suspended that rule temporarily. Saying nature "allows god" to exist is a simple category mistake; it would be the other way around. I agree with all but two of dondon's points: 1. I am not presupposing a seemingly inexplicable act is probably a miracle. If a miracle does occur, science will be unable to determine its cause. It can investigate the consequences of the miracle but not the miracle itself. 2. If you claim ownership of a pet wyvern (or invisible unicorn, etc.) that cannot be empirically sensed, science has nothing to say about its existence or nonexistence. We would have to turn to metaphysics and ask questions like "How do you know this wyvern exists?" or "Would our experiences make better sense if this wyvern was real?"

I don't understand what you mean. If a physical law holds true except when it is suspended miraculously, all scientists could conclude is that this law is absolute except for that one instance. There would be no paradigm shifts because the source for this exception is supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method.

Miracles are not scientific (supernatural) but they have observable consequences (empirical). If a god suspends a natural law to perform a miracle, the cause cannot be understood through science. Scientists can investigate but will never "find god" under a microscope. The most they will be able to conclude is that an otherwise absolute natural law was violated in this sole instance. The alleged existence of both our hypothetical god and your pet wyvern are not scientific claims. If we wanted to argue one or both was real we'd have to produce non-empirical justification.

Suppose the following: 1. The law of conservation of energy (as we understand it) is true and always in effect, so long as the world is left to its own devices. 2. God does not leave the world to its own devices and during his involvement suspends this law briefly. These statements are compatible. Both could be true without contradiction. How scientists would evaluate this phenomenon is not an interesting question. This has no impact on the compatibility question. (edited for accuracy) I did not mention that our hypothetical god was a creator god (admittedly the deistic label was misleading). He could be, he could not be. If he is, maybe he fashioned the universe to appear eternal to human minds.

Miracles are not scientific. The existence of miracles does not make physical laws fundamentally flawed, it just means that a hypothetical god would be able to suspend them. Unsurprising. Most miraculous claims are indeed bunk. To you and others reading, here is a simple way to settle this issue: produce a strictly religious claim (no empirical content) that is incompatible with a strictly scientific claim (no metaphysical content). If you can produce this, the two are at least occasionally incompatible, if not then not. We can make it simpler. Examine the most fundamental religious claim: God exists. This god is not personal, does not involve himself in the affairs of the world, does not answer prayers. In what specific way would the presence of this deistic god contradict science?

Most of these examples are of a religion making scientific claims. In such cases the compatibility of science and that particular faith depends on whether the claims are allegorical, and if not [ii] whether the claims are true. Miracles do not contradict science because they are a temporary suspension of physical laws. "Physical laws cannot be temporarily suspended" is not a scientific claim. Then you have more basic religious arguments, like "God exists" or "God is a trinity," which are plainly compatible with science.

They are compatible because (until a religion makes scientific judgments) the truth of one set of claims does not compete with the truth of the other set of claims.

This does not mean religion and science are incompatible. It means not all religious claims are scientific claims. That is obvious.

I just witnessed Eyrios miss with a master sword after activating sol. Was attacking a sleeping Elf who presumably activated miracle. So if sol/luna are calculated after hit, they are also calculated before miracle. This is probably known already but I figured I would comment just in case.

I would not give Elite to Karin. She is not a combat unit and trying to make her one, when there are many alternatives available, seems like a questionable investment. Safy is the natural choice for Elite in quicker play since warp is super useful for Ch.10 and beyond. Otherwise it should be applied to units itching for an early promotion. It makes sense for the swordmasters, Salem, Tina, and any core combat units who would like more level-ups. Marty puts it to nice use if you want to give him some favoritism, since his promotion bonuses are superb and Elite lets him scroll-abuse his way to good capture utility.

Unless you're aiming for a near-perfect rank, you can and should factor 99% misses into your strategy. Same applies for movement stars. The warp tiles in 16b are tedious but mentioned by the village and not a problem for unranked play, since the warp tiles teleport units away from danger. I find many people try and justify cheating Thracia when their strategy is what needs improvement. There is plenty of bull in a blind playthrough but the problems are largely with unexpected surprises, not the numbers.

I don't know what there is to disagree with. On outdoor maps armors are totally outclassed by fliers. On indoor maps armors have unique lance access which gives them reason to exist. 1-2 range is still good in Mystery and Gradius boosts exp on top of its power. Armors are still terrible but FE3 carved a niche for them.

There is precedent in Mystery, so I imagine it was intentional. In FE3 mounts were nerfed indoors. Significant movement drop, stat penalties, and (other than the rare thunder sword) no 1-2 range offense. This indirectly buffed armors, as they alone could wield javelins and Gradius inside. Only problem was how weapon level was a universal stat, so mounts could jump from powerful lances to powerful swords without issue. Thracia corrects this with individual weapon ranks.