Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

I don't think Bluejay's concern is with real life, eye visible predictions like everyday mundane gravity stuff, etc. Perhaps it's problems like biogenesis, BB, no outside of, properties of space, progression of complexity and order, etc that he has in mind.As to predictions, observations like real life in these modern times such as global gpvernment (UN) mark/number monetary technology, climate change, Mideast political phenomena relative to the restoration of Israel, etc, moral decay, rise of Islam nations against Israel, predicted thousands of years ago in the alleged designer's Holy Bible, are enough so as to afford an alternative explanation for observed phenomena than purely natural explanations.As a matter of fact, the natural hypotheses are the Johnny-come-lately alternative ones, considering that nearly all human cultures in history have been religious, applying a supernatural perspective.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yo Blue, So then we agree that such a basic heuristic was not found in the early days of science. So now the question is, when do you think this became a rule of thumb? This would suggest that there was a pre-existing rule of thumb in scientific thinking that was found after the shift away from dogmatic religion - either that or it became a rule of thumb as a result of experimentation.I would argue for the latter; I would say that the accumulation of data, aquired from scientific research, starting with Darwin (not really but lets arbitrarily pick him as the originator) - which gave a detailed theory of how life evolved without the need of a supernatural entity - ending with (but not really as it continues today) Einstein who showed us how the cosmos evolved without the need of a supernatural entity, has lead to the rule of thumb in todays science.Which do you favor? Or have I presented a false dichotomy and you have something else in mind?- Oni

The word "supernatural" that is applied to things we do not understand loses this word definition when we do understand it. Supernatural, God, magical are words used that do not have a global agreed upon definition that has not been made official yet for lack of evidence.

Hi Barbara. What the word aludes to is phenomena indicative of a level of intelligence above that of human creatures. From a cosmological perspective, it is no more mysterious than other complex scientific perspectives acclaimed to have evidence
derived from mathmatical calculations.But we do have supportive evidence for the supernatural hypothesis, whether or not secularists will acknowledge it when presented.Which is more imperical: debatable predictions derived from quantum and string theory or historically verified fulfilled supernatural/higher intelligence predictions written thousands of years before the fact?Based on real life, eyeball observations, order to chaos is the norm whereas chaos to order is not the norm. We can look at a highly complex city and confidently predict that, abandoned by working intelligent beings and left to itself, it will deterioriate into chaotic rubble in a relatively short time. Relative to evidence, this model is supportive to the supernatural ID hypothesis. Edited by Buzsaw, : spelling

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buzz "supernatural" is applied to things that cannot be observed in the Natural world or have not been reasonably observed in the natural world.

Hi, Straggler.Sorry about the delay: both my laptop battery and my PSU burnt out on Monday (probably all that twelveplus-hours-a-day online studying I was doing), and I haven’t had a computer all week.And, as an aside, I didn’t realize how complicated science is until I tried to do a week’s worth of it without a computer. No, not really. We’re talking about whether or not it is possible to determine this question.----- All except for Bluegenes’ theory, that is; Blugenes’ theory can only be falsified by a supernatural alternative.In my book, this means that it is not a scientific theory.----- I can’t figure out why you are incapable of seeing that empiricism would not be a valid or meaningful way to study genuine supernature.You’re so focused on naturalism, empiricism, and the scientific method, that you’ve completely failed to account for the fact that supernature doesn’t have to behave in any way that is meaningful to you, or that is meaningful in a naturalistic, empirical or scientific sense. It doesn’t have to leave interpretable patterns in data sets, and it doesn’t have to not leave patterns that would support alternative explanations.----- Why would the existence of supernature preclude the ability of naturalistic explanations to make successful predictions?You are a fool if you think successful predictions mean anything at all when the alternative to the prediction cannot be demonstrated.You are a fool if you think Bluegenes’ theory really successfully predicts anything, anyway.Given any set of similar ideas or things (even naturalistic things), it is a sure bet that at least some of them came from human imagination. So, I say that it is completely impossible for human imagination to not successfully predict at least some observations in any data set. Examples: So, given any data set, all you have to do is look hard enough, and you can validate your prediction in at least some circumstances.In the case of the supernatural, the genuine articles legitimately cannot be demonstrated to be genuine, so all you can work with is the subset that can be demonstrated to be imaginary, and you are claiming that this is somehow meaningful, and should be extrapolated to the entire collection of analogous things, simply because genuineness has not yet be demonstrated (even though it cannot be demonstrated).----- Straggler's entire argument amounts to nothing more than an over elaborate attempt to get around the very real impotence of empirical reasoning in testing supernatural concepts by pretending that he can instead have "confidence" in an alternative theory that can only be falsified by demonstrating the supernatural, apparently oblivious to the fact that this is exactly the same thing.He also has an annoying habit of attributing peoples’ tendency to disagree with him to the irrationality of their theistic background, even when he has been told on multiple occasions that his opponent considers himself agnostic, and has, in fact, been arguing for an agnostic, rather than a theistic, conclusion.I will not be participating further in this debate.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That's the issue though, buz. To you quantum mechanics looks mysterious, but not to quantum physicist who understand it as well as you understand the workings of a care engine.You don't require god or a supernatural force to make your car go, because you understand it. It's not that complex to you. This is the same as when a quatum physicist looks at QM; they don't require a god or supernatural force because they understand it. It's not that complex to them. There is a long history of science replacing supernatural intervention with natural causes, all of your work is still ahead of you.- Oni

Can we have confidence in conclusions and predictions made on the basis of consistent natural laws and the absence of supernatural agents overriding those laws? Or not?I am holding my pen in the air again. I am going to let go.

What do you think my pen will do

How confident are you of this behaviour?

​

Assuming that you do have confidence in the predicted behaviour of my dropped pen on what possible basis do you have this confidence if not in the consistency of natural law and the absence of any supernatural agents overriding these laws?

​

Bluejay writes:

​

All except for Bluegenes’ theory, that is; Blugenes’ theory can only be falsified by a supernatural alternative.

​

No. No. No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You KEEP asserting this. But this is simply untrue. As per Message 184. I even told you how Bluegenes theory could be naturalistically falsified. ALL scientific explanations can be falsified by both naturalistic and supernaturalistic alternatives. The difference here is one of emphasis. NOT one of principle.

​

The entire basis of your opposition is based on a false premise. If you could just forget demands to disprove supernatural involvement for one moment we could actually get somewhere here. If you could instead apply the confidence in the consistency of natural law and absence of supernatural involvement that is present in every other naturalistic theory to the question at hand we could progress this discussion. If you could stop special pleading the question of supernatural human conceptual origins and treat it with the same confidence as any other evidenced naturalistic explanation - You might finally understand what it is myself and Bluegenes have been saying all this time.

​

But instead you go down the tragic route of demanding disproof of the supernatural on the basis of a false premise. I find your blinkeredness utterly depressing.

​

Bluejay writes:

​

I can’t figure out why you are incapable of seeing that empiricism would not be a valid or meaningful way to study genuine supernature.

​

Because this is only true if:

​

"Genuine" supernatural agents have absolutely no role in observable physical nature whatsoever. Including any interaction with humans that can itself be the cause of human conceptualisation of the supernatural.

​

Supernatural agents act completely in accordance with natural laws and are thus utterly undetectable because they are indistinguishable from natural laws in every way. (pantheism?)

​

In either case the "genuinely" supernatural is completely imperceptible to us. Thus any human conceptualisation of the supernatural is necessarily derived internal to the human mind. I.e the product of human imagination. Any equivalence there may be between this supernatural reality (that may philosophically exist) and the concepts arrived at by humanity are thus purely coincidental.

​

Or as I (and Bluegenes) would say - Very unlikely to actually exist.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. This is where our hair splitting difference lies.The requirement to consider something possible can be borne from ignorance. Until we know that something is impossible how can we consider it to be anything other than a possibility?Experience, or lack thereof, doesn't come into it.

If nothing else answer this: That isn't what I said is it? I said that it is impossible to have ANY confidence in ANY prediction borne of ANY naturalistic explanation without implicitly assuming both the consistency of natural law and the absence of supernatural agents that will override those lawsSo I ask you - Can we legitimately have confidence in conclusions and predictions made on the basis of consistent natural laws and the absence of any supernatural agents overriding those laws?Or are you still asserting that such assumptions are "heuristic" and statistically invalid?

I agree, but this by-passes my point.Those questions raised based on experience ONLY should then be investigated without a positive or negative assumtion - or rather, without a possible or impossible conclusion - it should be investigated with a neutral stance.That is different from a concept derived from empirical evidence, where a possible or impossible position can justifiably be given. In those cases, and in those cases only, can we say "Until we know that something is impossible how can we consider it to be anything other than a possibility."When it comes to questions about god, supernatural or even magic, I'm not saying it's possible or impossible, I'm saying the experience itself is not yet established as representing an actual phenomenon in reality.Going back to Jesus, the question isn't whether or not what he did should be considered natural or supernatural, the question is, Did he do something at all? Is there an actual phenomenon to investigate, or are these just stories?I fear we'll still have that hair splitting difference, so if you'd like to reply that's cool, but I won't be offended if you don't. - Oni

And I completely agree with that too. We are essentially talking about the difference between what I would call "evidenced possibilities" and "unevidenced possibilities". It is this that I spent months fruitlessly trying to explain to RAZD. As per Message 217The existence of supernatural entities is an "unevidenced possibility". There is no evidential foundation for even asking the question. That it is even considered gives it more credit than it even deserves.All of which I suspect you will agree with and all of which I have been saying for some time. Again I agree. That should be the question by any standard of evidence worthy of the name. BUT a supernatural Jesus remains a possibility. I don't think I disagree with your point or that I ever have done. I think you are misreading me when I try to make the subtle distinction between something being possible (i.e. a positive claim that it is possible and can exist) and my insistence that something remains as a possibility out of ignorance as to whether it can exist or not (i.e. where no positive claim that it is possible is being made) That is what I am doing. That is what I am arguing for. I am not saying that we must consider the supernatural possible because I somehow know that such things can exist. I very much doubt that they can. But in the absence of knowledge that something is impossible it remains a possibility.That is a very subtle difference. Oh who are you kiddin? You know full well I will keep replying until I gag myself. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Until it can be demonstrated that it is possible - I don't see how anyone can say that it is. Just saying "I personally am not in a position to say that it is impossible.", doesn't seem sufficient to me to say "It is therefore possible.".I could say it is possible for the Libyan Lottery numbers 1,30,85, 256, 7 to be million pound winners on July 26 1976 because I haven't researched the Libyan Lottery.But if there is no such thing as a Libyan Lottery or if the numbers in it only go up to 48 or it didn't start running until 1998 or the lottery is never run on a Monday....then it isn't actually possible at all and my claim "It's possible." is in fact, false. The accurate sentence is "I can't rule it out or confirm it as true, but this is due to an insufficient amount of information with which to do either."Likewise if someone says "It's possible that God exists." are actually making a claim they have no grounds to make. They have no way of knowing if it is possible that God could exist. Once all the facts are known - it may turn out to be impossible.

I agree. But still the existence of God remains a possibility does it not?See my post to Oni above for the distinction I am trying to make.AbE - Did you read the earlier conversation between myself and Oni in this thread where we basically disagreed about whether or not the supernatural could be defined out of existence by defining reality and existence as being limited to empirical experience.I still don't think we can simply define reality and existence in this manner and thus I continue to subtly disagree with Oni's conclusion that the term supernatural is "meaningless" and "nothing".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't know the underlying rules of metaphysics for reality: so how could I know the answer to that question.God hasn't, and presently cannot be ruled out. But that doesn't make it possible.I appreciate the distinction between 'unevidenced possibilities' but I think too many people run with "But it is possible!?" so I prefer to ask "Is it?" rather than say "Yes!".There is a better, more precise term that avoids people running amok with "But it is possible"...God is unfalsified.