Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 549 (576743)
08-25-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler
08-25-2010 12:34 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
The existence of something which is neither derived from nor subject to natural laws is NOT logically impossible. Therefore it is logically possible.
Could you run me through the logic, here? Show your work, I mean?
This seems like a jump to conclusions, frankly. Is your evidence that it is not logically impossible that no one has yet proven that it is logically impossible? That's not a logical proof, that's a fallacious argument from ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2010 12:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2010 1:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 549 (576758)
08-25-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
08-25-2010 12:40 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
I never said it was a logical proof. The requirement to consider something possible can indeed be borne from ignorance. Until we know that something is impossible how can we consider it to be anything other than a possibility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2010 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 6:21 PM Straggler has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 183 of 549 (576760)
08-25-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
08-25-2010 11:00 AM


Re: Universality and Confidence In The Face Of Supernatural Possibilities
Hi, Straggler.
You have an unusual gift for making your debate opponents feel like responding to you is of the utmost urgency. Regrettably, however, I’m going to have to back down after this post: I’ve only got two weeks left until my candidacy exams, and this topic is cutting into my ability to focus on my study.
If you still want to talk about this in three weeks (which, obviously, you will, because you’re Straggler), feel free to invite me back in. But, for now, I need to not be involved in any of these deeper, time-consuming debates.
So, here is my final response before respite:
-----
Straggler writes:
RAZD seems to be under the bewildering misapprehension that citing unfalsifiable supernatural alternative explanations to evidenced naturalistic theories invalidates them. And you (at least did) seem to agree with him to some extent.
This is subtly inaccurate. I am under the apprehension that theories that explicitly state an ability to comment on the supernatural are not defensible logically or empirically.
The theory is invalid because it explicitly cites the demonstration of the inherently indemonstrable as the only way to falsify it.
-----
Straggler writes:
If (for example) a chimp colony genetically modified by humans for increased intelligence started displaying primitive theistic tendencies this would obviously render the universal form of bluegenes theory All god concepts are the products of human imagination to be false in the same way that All species on Earth are the result of evolution by means of natural selection can be rendered false by species that are developed in a lab.
I need to respond to two different parts of the above quote.
Displaying primitive theistic tendencies.
I’m quite frustrated by this, because I am still of the opinion that purportedly supernatural beings cannot actually be demonstrated to be supernatural, and I seem to be the only participant in this debate who regards this as a particularly relevant point.
Your examples seem to completely neglect the investigatory methods required to verify the supernatural quality of something. You and Bluegenes seem to both assume that witnessing something like a mermaid or a chimpanzee who can walk on water would demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. But, surely you can recognize this as a God of the gaps argument? The only way to verify that some given phenomenon is supernatural is to demonstrate that the gap into which you want to insert a god is infinitely large: otherwise, it’s just another singularity in the theory that may or may not be explained by some future development.
If God of the gaps cannot be used to support the existence of deity, then it also cannot be used to falsify a naturalistic hypothesis, which means that Bluegenes’ hypothesis needs a non-supernatural falsification criterion, which means that his theory must surrender its claim to commentary on the supernatural in order to be retained as a valid, testable theory.
All species on Earth are the result of... natural selection...
There are two main problems I have with this.
First, the scope can be altered at whim to make it true even in cases when it isn’t true. If one species became two by means of isolation and genetic drift, natural selection need not be invoked to explain this data. But, you can slide the rule and say that natural selection was surely involved at some point in the species’ evolutionary history, and thereby claim that the theory is still true. So, unless you are making an already-falsified claim (such as, all speciation events are the direct result of natural selection"), I don’t think this theory is actually saying anything substantive.
Second, it can be falsified by an observation with a naturalistic explanation. Naturalistic explanations can be verified empirically and statistically. On the other hand, supernaturalistic explanations cannot be verified empirically or statistically. So, once again, because Bluegenes requires an observation with a supernaturalistic explanation to falsify his theory, while natural selection does not, these examples simply are not logically analogous to one another.
-----
Straggler writes:
Well why don’t you explain how your statistical analysis was applied to the specific example of the Big Bang hypothesis such that it has rightfully achieved the status of high confidence. High confidence that ultimately arose as a result of the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation.
Can you make clear what the null hypothesis was, what statistical data was analysed and how the hypothesis met the requirements of high confidence based on this statistical methodology.
I don’t recall having claimed that the Big Bang hypothesis has rightfully achieved the status of high confidence, and I lack the qualifications to satisfactorily answer your questions about it (I don’t even know what Cosmic Background Radiation is), so I feel no shame in declining this challenge.
-----
See you on the other side, Straggler.
Edited by Bluejay, : added the farewell.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2010 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2010 3:26 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 5:56 AM Blue Jay has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 184 of 549 (576776)
08-25-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Blue Jay
08-25-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Universality and Confidence In The Face Of Supernatural Possibilities
We cannot disprove supernatural involvement in ANY observed phenomenon no matter how well materially evidenced our scientific explanation for that phenomenon may be.
But nor can we prove supernatural involvement in ANY observed phenomenon either. Should disproving or proving such things have any bearing on our confidence in our theories?
Bluejay writes:
I am under the apprehension that theories that explicitly state an ability to comment on the supernatural are not defensible logically or empirically.
But the thing that you seem unable to comprehend is that ALL naturalistic explanations necessarily implicitly take the same position with regard to the unfalsifiable supernatural alternatives which is being explicitly taken here. The only difference in this instance is that it is in your face and has to be confronted head on as part of the argument rather than just assumed or ignored as is the case in every other naturalistic explanation.
Every scientific theory can be falsified by observation with a naturalistic explanation. And every single scientific explanation for anything could be invalidated by the presence of unfalsifiable supernatural involvement in that phenomenon. The human imagination theory is no different except in that the normal falsification focus is reversed.
Are gravitational effects the result of space-time curvature as it seems or is there a supernatural agent at work making it appear this way?
Is evolution really the result of selection and random mutation or is there an imperceptible supernatural presence following a plan that appears random to us?
Is the Earth really billions of years old or was it supernaturally created seconds ago with the full appearance of age?
Are supernatural concepts sourced from the human mind as all the evidence would suggest or do some derive from the un-evidenced existence of the supernatural?
You could not apply your statistical methods to any of the above questions to eliminate the supernatural possibility. Yet in each case the naturalistic explanation would be falsified by the presence of a supernatural cause for the phenomenon at hand.
Bluejay writes:
I’m quite frustrated by this, because I am still of the opinion that purportedly supernatural beings cannot actually be demonstrated to be supernatural, and I seem to be the only participant in this debate who regards this as a particularly relevant point.
We cannot prove that something is definitely supernatural any more than we can prove that there is definitely no supernatural involvement present in gravity or evolution or any other physically observed phenomenon for which we have a material explanation.
All we have done is reverse the normal focus of disproof from being unable to prove that there are no supernatural elements that would invalidate our naturalistic explanation to, in this case, being unable to prove that there are.
It is a difference of focus. Not principle.
Bluejay writes:
The theory is invalid because it explicitly cites the demonstration of the inherently indemonstrable as the only way to falsify it.
No. It can be falsified by natural means. But because of the nature of the subject the focus is on falsifying the possible supernatural causes that, whilst ever present, normally get completely ignored.
The only difference is one of emphasis. Not principle.
Bluejay writes:
Second, it can be falsified by an observation with a naturalistic explanation.
So can the human imagination theory. All we need is physical evidence of an alien culture or other species that demonstrates it's belief in the supernatural in some way. Then humans would not be the only source of supernatural concepts.
But these naturalistic alternatives are being ignored in exactly the same way that supernatural alternatives are usually ignored.
It is a difference of emphasis. Not principle.
Bluejay writes:
so I feel no shame in declining this challenge.
The point of my bringing up the Big Bang theory was to highlight that confidence in theories rests primarily on their ability to make predictions.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Blue Jay, posted 08-25-2010 1:56 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 185 of 549 (576795)
08-25-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
08-24-2010 12:38 PM


Supernatural Is (more than) An ADJECTIVE
Hi stragg - I think you're overthinking things bud ..
I have finally worked out what the hell you are talking about.
Please, don't get my hopes up ..
And in doing so I can see why your thinking is so confused.
.. just to break meh down.
You think that because out of ignorance ..
No - not out of ignorance, but rather out of using methods - which are not scientific, that correlate to their specific culture.
.. someone can look at a fire and conclude that is supernatural whilst another person will look at an eclipse and out of a different form of ignorance conclude that is supernatural — That the term supernatural refers directly to whatever phenomenon one is personally unable to explain.
You see, the thing is, the adjective use of the term is applied to a noun (eg. explanations) which causes the noun to take on a more specific identity. For instance, this doesn't make fire 'supernatural', but rather the explanation which has been deduced without the use of scientific methods. Agreed?
This may also be referred to as a 'noun modifier' in the english language, providing 'supernatural' is being supplied as a noun. I'll explain more in a minute ..
Before I do though, I also want to mention that the issue isn't that they're unable to explain the phenomena, because they do have explanations - non scientific ones. These explanations are arrived at by methods foreign to the scientific community, but does that make indigenous people ignorant?
It might make them naive to the methods and conclusions reached by the scientific culture at large.
But I wouldn't say scientists were ignorant because of an unfamiliariity of religious expression, which is not much different than saying every explanation outside of the scientific culture is 'ignorance'. Out of the context of humor or generalizations, this is simply bigoted extremism masquerading as intellect1.
On the basis that a disparate array of phenomenon have at one time or another been labelled as supernatural you thus conclude that the term has no defined meaning whatsoever.
I've yet to make that claim - it's your claim made on my behalf.
I've simply suggested the term has limited usefulness, perhaps to the point that its's potentially useless.
Is that right?
Not at all unfortunately.
If so the following is why you are wrong.
Can't wait ...
The term supernatural is an adjective. Not a noun.
I wonder if it's this understanding of yours that has you all discombomulated??
This statement is so misleading and incomplete that it may be fair to say it is altogether incorrect.
'Supernatural' is one of those fun words - like 'sacrifice' (eg. noun and verb), that can act as an adjective, an adverb, as well as a noun.
I suggest you don't take my word for it, but rather go straight away to your dictionary and see for yourself.
The fact that it has been applied to a wide range of nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) no more makes it objectively meaningless than the fact that red can be applied to books, toasters, apples or windmills results in the term red being meaningless.
The fact that the term has its place as an adjective and a noun, etc., is what may begin to rob it of its usefulness (or 'meaningfulness').
That is, when one finishes confusing things at times by not being mindful of its particular functions and how they apply to the language.
When we describe something as supernatural we mean that it is inherently materially inexplicable because it is neither derived from nor subject to the laws of nature.
Who's 'we' - you have a mouse in your pocket?
More importantly - how does anyone conclude something being described as 'supernatural' is necessarily underived and unsubjectable to the laws of nature? You would first have to possess the complete knowledge of natural laws in their entirety, which science has yet to accomplish.
Otherwise you are making axiomatic statements - or assumptions, which are deduced from a limited knowledge base.
Now the fact that people have (and do) apply this adjective erroneously to things which it later turns out are perfectly explicable in natural terms does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. The fact that it is highly improbable that anything genuinely supernatural actually exists does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. It is a descriptive term. One that that is all too often applied erroneously as the result of ignorance I agree. But that does not mean the term itself has no meaning..
Yaaaawn ...
The phenomenon may change but the attributes believers imbue these with can be meaningfully called "supernatural.
Yes - which should serve as an indication to others that they aren't aware of ..
  • how the natural laws are being manipulated to produce the phenomena.
    or
  • whether the phenomena is outside of the constraints of natural law.
Without wanting to get too grammatically pedantic on your arse — Basically you are conflating nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) with the adjective (i.e. supernatural) used to describe (correctly or otherwise) the attributes of those nouns.
Have a couple brews & shake it off mate.
But don't forget - the term 'supernatural' is not only what could be referred to as an adjective or an actual noun, but it can also act as a noun modifier.
Even an adverb. It's a bit of a conceptual mess really.
One Love
1 ~ And there's a possibility in the context of humor and generalizations, it is simply bigoted extremism masquerading as humor and generalizations.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2010 12:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Bailey has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 186 of 549 (576800)
08-25-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler
08-25-2010 12:34 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
Your premise denies even this possibility and is thus invalid.
My premise is simple, whatever exists exists. You have added to it that it has to be natural -vs- supernatural. This is why I said natural is a given, you know of nothing else other than existence, reality and the natural order.
My problem continues to focus on the word supernatural, I'll get to that next.
The existence of something which is neither derived from nor subject to natural laws is NOT logically impossible.
Then you're logic if faulty, or you have placed too much confidence in it.
It is completely contratictory to claim that something can both exist but is not derived from nor subject to natural law. To exist is to be subject to and derived from natural law - if not, then you have now redefined the use of the word "exist."
Unless, you happen to have another example of "exist" that I am not aware of.
What evidence are you using to support the notion that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law? Because frankly, it defies logic.
This does not in itself preclude the possibility that there are things which are genuinely supernatural
If your only definition, or your best definition, of supernatural is "things that exist but are not subject to or derived from natural law" then your use of the word is ambiguous and can fit any gap in human knowledge, not based on any sort of evidence, and logically wrong, as I have shown above.
That which is possible is not restricted to that which is currently evidenced.
Agreed. But there are limits.
The actual existence of the genuinely supernatural (e.g. a genuinely divine and miraculous Christ who is neither derived from nor subject to laws of nature) is a possibility.
Here is where you are wrong. My reason is written above.
Existence = natural law. It cannot logically be anything else.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2010 12:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 5:59 AM onifre has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 549 (576866)
08-26-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Blue Jay
08-25-2010 1:56 PM


Why You Are Wrong
I wish you well with your exams over the next few weeks and obviously hope to see you return to this afterwards. But here — in summary — I will demonstrate why it is that your position is so flawed.
Take any scientific explanation you care to consider in whatever the most succinct terms you are happy to consider it in. Now add onto the end of it And no supernatural involvement is ever present in this process.
Now at this point Bluejay you will be jumping up and down. You will be telling us that no explicit statement regarding unfalsifiable possibilities can justifiably be made. You will be telling us that even if there is supernatural involvement we can never prove it to be such and that the theory in question is thus unfalsifiable and unscientific.
But here is the problem with your entire position. This explicitly stated denial of supernatural involvement is implicitly present in every single naturalistic explanation. It is never explicitly stated. It doesn’t need to be. But that denial of supernatural involvement is what by definition makes it a naturalistic explanation.
Now we could write the human imagination theory in the following way — Supernatural concepts are derived from the human mind. And no supernatural involvement is ever present in this process. In which case it is phrased in the same way as all other naturalistic theories but with the tentative denial of supernatural involvement necessarily made explicit because the subject matter demands it.
So in summary — Your objections to the human imagination theory apply to every single naturalistic explanation. Only because of the subject matter and the phraseology this necessitates are the factors you find so offensive explicitly stated. Your position amounts to nothing more than demanding disproof of supernatural involvement and this is of course impossible in ANY naturalistic explanation. But this has no more bearing on our confidence in the human imagination theory than it does any other scientific theory or naturalistic explanation for anything.
See you when you get back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Blue Jay, posted 08-25-2010 1:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 09-11-2010 10:23 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 188 of 549 (576867)
08-26-2010 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by onifre
08-25-2010 4:49 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
The actual existence of the genuinely supernatural (e.g. a genuinely divine and miraculous Christ who is neither derived from nor subject to laws of nature) is a possibility.
Here is where you are wrong.
If something is not known to be impossible it must remain considered as a possibility. Right? I would have thought that this is simply inarguable.
Do you know that the existence of a divine and genuinely miraculous Christ is impossible?
If so how?
Oni writes:
My reason is written above.
Your reason amounts to nothing more than a restatement of your false premise. "All that exists is necessarily natural".
Oni writes:
To exist is to be subject to and derived from natural law - if not, then you have now redefined the use of the word "exist."
Then you have apparently single handedly solved the ontological question. A question that has bemused philosophers for millenia
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by onifre, posted 08-25-2010 4:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by onifre, posted 08-26-2010 4:37 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 189 of 549 (576879)
08-26-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Bailey
08-25-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Supernatural Is (more than) An ADJECTIVE
If you are simply asserting that the term "supernatural" is devoid of any common conceptual meaning at all then I suggest that you get a collection of dictionaries and look up the word to see how it is defined.
In addition all of your arguments could equally apply to numerous other words. Words such as "impossible". Words which have been erroneously applied out of ignorance ("Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin) and words which can be applied subjectively ("I find your posts impossible to make sense of" - Straggler). Words which have defined and common conceptual meaning despite their erroneous use and subjective application.
B writes:
Have a couple brews & shake it off mate.
If I throw a stick will you go away?
This will be my last post in response to you. Because (to put it bluntly) I think you are a bit of a twat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Bailey, posted 08-25-2010 4:22 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Bailey, posted 08-26-2010 11:46 AM Straggler has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 190 of 549 (576904)
08-26-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
08-26-2010 9:00 AM


Re: Supernatural Is (more than) An ADJECTIVE
Hey stragg — sadly, this may be our last post I guess (but I hope not) ..
stragg writes:
If you are simply asserting that the term "supernatural" is devoid of any common conceptual meaning at all then I suggest that you get a collection of dictionaries and look up the word to see how it is defined.
Honestly straggler, I don’t think anybody said the term’s ‘devoid’ of any common conceptual meaning. That’s overstating things, I agree.
I suggested it can become a bit of a conceptual mess and may not always be useful in a description (without some clarification), which are different attributes altogether. Also, I've given what I’d consider reasonable definitions (up for scrutiny of course) ..
In Message 137 weary writes,
I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria ..
and
In Message 178 weary writes,
I'd suggest the concept of 'supernatural' is best represented as some order of existence beyond the small portion of the universe that has a veritable scientific framework; perhaps even a departation from what's usually expected, which may appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws.
I think the second one presents better wording than the former.
Please - one more thing before you throw your stick at me, and the following isn't meant as sarcasm.
Another reason this word play regarding ‘supernatural’ seems to happen is when people hear the term the default stance appears to be that the phenomena being described is necessarily outside of the constraints of natural law.
Yet, isn’t it possible the phenomena being described is inside of the constraints of natural law, which is to say unknown - yet, extant natural laws are being manipulated to produce the phenomena? ABE: Isn't it even possible that known natural laws are being manipulated in a way that were not familiar with?
Like you say, we can’t reasonably discount a possibility and it would seem these types of possibilities may be all the more likely considering the number of things that have been described ‘supernatural’, but - as you said, turned out to be natural after all.
This interpretation of the concept ‘supernatural’ is not as rigidly defined as the default position I mentioned. It’s different, in that it allows the phenomena being described to simply appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws.
In this way the term does not necessitate the phenomena to exist outside of extant natural law; however, it necessarily allows for the phenomena to exist outside of our known natural laws. I see these two possibilities as distinct from one another.
Does this seem reasonable to you, am I communicating poorly or am I way off?
Or maybe a combination of all the above??
This will be my last post in response to you. Because (to put it bluntly) I think you are a bit of a twat.
You wouldn’t be the first lol. I didn’t mean to get you all sore at me though ..
I thought we were sparrin’ junk yard dog style. If it means anything - I’m sorry man.
Seriously.
In the end, honestly, I’ve tried to outline the main issue I have above - do you have enough juice left in you for one more round?
If I make an earnest attempt to quit bein’ a prick??
If not, I understand.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : ABE ...

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Straggler has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 191 of 549 (576950)
08-26-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Straggler
08-26-2010 5:59 AM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
If something is not known to be impossible it must remain considered as a possibility. Right? I would have thought that this is simply inarguable.
Without any context, sure, it's inarguable.
Do you know that the existence of a divine and genuinely miraculous Christ is impossible?
I accept that the existence of Christ is possible. But to attatch qualities such as miraculous, you would first have to explain what a miracle is. Show proof of one. There would need to be a consensus on what miracles actually were. Since there is none, the word remains ambiguous. You could have said he had "magical powers" or "supernatural energies," and it would have been the same thing, nonsense.
You have to define terms and words, explain what they are, they can just be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. It's similar to our discusion a while back with Linda Lou about telepathy.
Your reason amounts to nothing more than a restatement of your false premise. "All that exists is necessarily natural".
How can something both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law? The very word existence means it is derived from and subject to natural law - that's what existence is.
Thus a premise that maintains that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law is nonsensical.
Then you have apparently single handedly solved the ontological question. A question that has bemused philosophers for millenia
Mom did say I was going to achieve great things.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 5:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 5:38 PM onifre has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 192 of 549 (576967)
08-26-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by onifre
08-26-2010 4:37 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
I don’t know what it definitively means to exist. Nor do you. Which in turn means that declaring things as impossible based on a very definite definition of existence is unjustifiable.
By defining exist as you do you have made the all human conceptions of the supernatural (e.g. a genuinely divine and miraculous Christ unbounded by the laws of nature) logically impossible.
Now as a fellow atheist on this board nothing would make my life easier than for all religious conceptions of the supernatural (Allah, Christ, Vishnu et al) to be logically impossible. It would save a lot of time and effort if we could just say No. It is logically impossible for the object of your beliefs as conceived by your religion to actually exist. Thus you are refuted.
But you cannot justifiably take one of the most contentious areas of philosophy, simplistically assert that all which exists must be derived from and subject to natural laws because we know of nothing else and then pronounce that anything that defies your definition is impossible, meaningless and nothing. Purely because you have dictated it to be so.
Frankly if refuting theists were as trivial as you are making it this site would be a very dull place. So for that reason, even if no other, I am going to have to remain in disagreement.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by onifre, posted 08-26-2010 4:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 10:01 AM Straggler has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 193 of 549 (577087)
08-27-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-05-2010 2:38 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Hi Straggler,
Good post, using supernatural (in place of the IPU), sly dog you..
I had to think about this for a bit before seeing where the error was logically.
Religion has failed to explain anything in science.. ie God of the Gaps has failed..
then extrapolating it to ALL religious experience.
the game of basketball has failed to explain anything
therefore NOBODY has ever played basketball..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2010 7:49 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 194 of 549 (577096)
08-27-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by shalamabobbi
08-27-2010 6:43 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Religion has failed to explain anything in science..
Has belief in the supernatural succeeded in explaining anything?
then extrapolating it to ALL religious experience.
Human belief in or expereience of the supernatural is no more indicative or requiring of the actual existence of the supernatural than the existence of different species on Earth is indicative or requiring of a supernatural intelligent designer.
In both cases we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation (human imagination and evolution respectively) for an observed phenomenon in place and can be confident of it’s validity.
Anyone suggesting that a genuinely supernatural cause is the reason why humans have supernatural beliefs/experiences is being just as irrational as someone who claims that the appearance of design in nature requires a supernatural designer.
Anyone suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for anything for which we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction.
Not reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 6:43 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 11:10 AM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 195 of 549 (577138)
08-27-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Straggler
08-26-2010 5:38 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
I don’t know what it definitively means to exist. Nor do you. Which in turn means that declaring things as impossible based on a very definite definition of existence is unjustifiable.
But that is not what I said, I have declaired nothing impossible. I maintain that the word supernatural basically describes nothing, it is meaningless untill someone gives it a meaning or a function - such as the cause of an eclipse or volcanic eruption.
Same as the word god, it can literally mean and represent anything you want. If it can be everything and anything, then it really describes nothing. This, like supernatural, are gap filling words. They are place holders until the phenomenon is explained, or, realized to not have taken place.
YOU brought up logic and used it as your means to justify the possibility of something beyond a natural existence. But I challenge that very logic, the one that can, somehow, assume realms beyond the only experienced reality in which we find ourselves. Because it seems illogical to to do so.
Frankly if refuting theists were as trivial as you are making it this site would be a very dull place.
All I have challenged is their use of the word supernatural and god, as nothing more than place fillers. This, by the way, is not only my position, but that of many philosophers that are mentioned here on EvC quite often. If you like, I could provide quotes from them saying this very thing.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 5:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2010 11:51 AM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024