Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Hullo, Straggler.It's difficult to get a handle on long debates well underway, so I've found this one, and that between bluegenes and RAZD, both interesting and frustrating.I do wonder about this: Granting all that you have stipulated, there still seems to be room for something more than coincidence between any possible supernatural reality and the concepts arrived at by humanity.For example, a supernatural creator might have no contact with humanity once the universe(s) starts rolling: but the structural similarities between human consciousness and that of a supernatural creator might give human concepts some flavor of and insight into our creator. Wouldn't that be more than coincidence?Your formulation seems to hinge critically on the imperceptibility of the supernatural. But what is physically perceptible has changed nearly every decade of the past few hundred years, the intellectually perceptible for even longer. We might reasonably expect that process to continue. It seems to me that one could as reasonably argue that perceptibility/imperceptibility is a function of the evolving human mind, not a necessary quality of the supernatural.You may have touched on these questions already, but I am susceptible to the MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) syndrome when reading long contentious threads without the drama of a ringside seat.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Absolutely. I guess I just take the position of neutrality (if I could use that word in this instance) - I neither consider it possible or impossible, I consider the whole affair lacking of enough critical evidence to make any decision one way or the other.If however, the supernatural was evidenced in some way - for example, physicist telling us that structures can form which aren't bound to or derived from natural law - then anecdotes which require someone to have supernatural powers can be possible.Until then it doesn't make sense to weigh in on the matter one way or the other. Agreed, that in the absence of knowledge that something is impossible it remains a possibility. But the question is, do we actually have a "something" to consider, or just words?I question the concept and whether or not someone actually has one, not the possibility or impossibility of it's existence. That's why I dismiss "supernatural" and "god" as nothing really, because what is it aside from words? Are they actual concepts?I honestly cannot process the image or meaning of these words having never consciously seen it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I agree. I have never said it is possible in the sense of a positive declaration. I have said it remains a possibility only out of ignorance. Only because we cannot say it is impossible. I don't think you and I are really disagreeing here at all.The problem as I see it lies with the language used and my inability to find the words that distinguish between something remaining a possibility out of ignorance and a positive declaration of something actually being possible. I am sure I have seen you describe all sorts of things from Immaterial Pink Unicorns to Flying Spaghetti Monsters via CIA plots and Gods as "possibilities". Albeit unevidenced ones. No?In the absence of knowledge that such things are impossible how can they be considered as anything but possibilities?If you can find better language in which to express this I would be happy to hear it.

Hello to you too. Such is the nature of these things. You are proposing that some creator left an imprint in the universe that billions of years later manifests itself in the evolved physical brains of humans as some aspect of consciousness? How Would this occur without some 'invisible hand' guiding human evolution along required lines rather than human brains being the product of natural selection and random mutation? How is this compatible with (to paraphrase Einstein) the God that does play dice that quantum mechanics suggests is the only sort of genuinely non-intervening God possible? I am unaware of humans ever having demonstrably expanded their perceptive abilities beyond our empirical senses? If you are suggesting that detecting the supernatural is simply a matter of developing technology in the same way that detecting electrons was a matter of technological progress then I would question if this is the sort of inherently non-empirical entity that theists or any other supernaturalists would recognise as the object of their conceptual beliefs.Take our old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (as mentioned prolifically by RAZD in his debate with Bluegenes and an old favourite of mine). If genuinely immaterial in the sense of being inherently empirically undetectable then how could it ever be perceptible to us humans with our limited perceptory apparatus? How can this concept be derived from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?And the same question applies to any other inherently non-empirical ethereal or immaterial concept one can name.

After a bit of thought I think this is the difference between us:You define reality and existence as being limited to that which is empirically detectable and bounded by natural law. You derive this definition from the entirety of evidenced human experience. As a result supernatural concepts are, by definition, unreal and unable to exist. They are, by definition, impossible. Thus they can accurately be described as meaningless or nothing. Then you slap on some tentativity to this as a sort of philosophical afterthought.In contrast I conclude that reality and existence are limited to that which is empirically detectable and bounded by natural law. I derive this conclusion from the entirety of evidenced human experience. But like any evidence based conclusion this conclusion is inherently and innately tentative to some degree. As a result supernatural concepts are a possibility which contravene everything we know and are thus "possible" only to the extent that our conclusions are tentative. But they are not nothing or meaningless. They are simply almost certainly wrong.The difference between us is thus derived from the point at which we apply tentativity to our thinking. As such the practical difference between our positions is essentially non-existant. But there is a hair splitting philosophical difference. I continue to advocate my position as more philosophically viable because the tentativity we both agree upon is innate and built in whereas in your position it appears to be nothing more than a sort of grudging concessionary afterthought. Sure they are actual concepts. A supernatural Jesus, for example, is no more or less of a concrete concept than is the concept of Superman or Spider-Man. And the concept of the supernatural is just as concrete in terms of meaning as is the concept of superpowered superheroes. Why have you concluded that Yahweh is less defined as a concept than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter?The fact that supernatural concepts are almost certainly human inventions doesn't make them "meaningless" or "nothing". Any more than the notion that there are people walking round who can fly or have spider sense is "meaningless" or "nothing". Such notions are just (all but certainly) the result of human fantasies and nothing more.I will now gag myself and let you have the last word on this. Well.until we bring it up again at least. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I somehow missed this out of my previous post. And if it is unfalsified it remains a possibility does it not? Certainly that would be the anticipated response from one advocating a theistic or agnostic position.And then we are still left with the problem of distinguishing between that which is possible and that which is a possibility (or evidenced and unevidenced possibilities respectively)"Unfalsified" doesn't seem to help much. The terminological problem remains as far as I can see.

As per your recent message Message 395 I am just as frustrated with your level of stubborn inability to grasp what this is about as you apparently are with what you perceive to be mine.I am going to have one last go at engaging you on this. This time on the issue of prediction. An issue which, once again, you have utterly misread as being related to disproving the undisprovable rather than being related to positive evidence in favour of the theory in question. Once again you show your obsession with disproving the undisprovable. But that is not and never has been what this is about.This human imagination theory predicts that where you find human ignorance you will find a strong tendency for supernatural explanations.The human imagination theory predicts that humans will naturally seek to find conscious intent, meaning and purpose of the sort science cannot provide behind all manner of mindless physical processes no matter how inappropriate such questions may be (i.e. the why questions such as why was my family wiped out by the tsunami or why were my crops blighted by disease or why is the universe here). The human imagination theory predicts that in an effort to answer such why questions humans will imbue mindless physical processes with anthropomorphic qualities such as emotions, desires and intent and that the resulting answers will very often be supernatural in nature.The human imagination theory predicts that where challenged by increased understanding of nature those who hold cherished supernatural concepts will either deny the validity of contradictory scientific conclusions or they will evolve their supernatural concepts to become ever more unfalsifiable and ever more ambiguous with ever less of an observable role in nature.So I ask you

Are these predicted conclusions in agreement with past observations?

Would you bet against newly discovered human cultures (past, present or future) or newly forming human cultures demonstrably displaying these same tendencies?

In the case of the last prediction what do you think future theists will do as science continues to progress?

​

And finally — Why do we need to disprove the existence of the supernatural to have confidence in mankinds deeply evidenced proclivity to invent supernatural concepts for reasons that have nothing to do with external reality and everything to do with very human internal needs?

​

Bluejay writes:

​

I will not be participating further in this debate.

​

That is up to you. But let it at least be noted that your repeated assertion regarding the naturalistic unfalsifiability of the human imagination theory, and thus your conclusion that it cannot be a theory, is false. As per Message 184.

​

Let it also be noted that the human imagination theory can make predictions which have nothing to do with disproving the undisprovable. As discussed above.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, as it turns out, I did need to read this thread and the RAZD v. bluegenes Great Debate to understand the battle in its entirety.More specifically, I see now that your emphasis on perceptibility comes from the historical retreat of the supernatural into ineffability as science offered demonstrable explanations for perceptible phenomena. That retreat is inarguable, and I find your argument in general, and bluegene's theory in particular, quite persuasive.My initial response was predicated on the misunderstanding that you were offering an absolute disproof rather than a strong tentative theory. So I looked for weaknesses in a position that was not, in fact, yours.Let me reply briefly to your questions. I was thinking more along the lines of an anthropic principle, of a universe which demonstrably, by our existence, is precisely the kind of universe required to produce intelligence/consciousness.So, no, not a universe made to produce us, specifically, but one made to produce intelligence without further intervention from its creator or creative force--who (or which), by residing outside this universe, would fit the bill as "super" to the nature of our universe and imperceptible from within it. I realize this merely kicks the can down the road, since it does not necessitate the "supernatural" in the sense reflected by our world's religious history, nor does it engage the gallop into ineffability readily tracked in that history. This is a bit slippery, since perception cannot be equated with the unprocessed senses: the process is more dynamic than linear, with the brain's preexisting descriptions conditioning what perceptions are derived from the senses.I think we have, indeed, demonstrably expanded our perceptive abilities--via improved technology, yes, but more fundamentally by improving our minds. While my senses function just as those of deep antiquity, what I perceive is vastly different: Fred Flintstone might perceive a nasty smell on a cloudy day and think the valley cursed by gods, while I perceive a thermal inversion layer. We both "see" the same sensory input, but our perceptions are conditioned differently by knowledge and experience.I acknowledge that this expansion of our perception was accomplished by applying empirical rigor to our sensory input; I also acknowledge the distinction whiffs by your argument, as I now understand it, without effect. This point in particular arose from my misunderstanding your argument as an attempted disproof, without the context of the supernatural's retreat into ineffability. You are right, of course, that supernaturalists would not accept any phenomenon we can detect and measure.Similarly, I still think it possible (if unevidenced) that our universe was created or caused by an outside entity who established starting conditions which would lead to the evolution of intelligence within it and who would forever remain imperceptible outside it.We might discover it to be an evidenced possibility should we gain the technological wherewithal to send another brane expanding its way into the evolution of intelligence and the climb out of superstition. But I don't believe it.Well formulated, well evidenced, well argued: I think you are right.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Hi Omnivorous The anthropic principle is the thorniest of questions to some, but it still doesn't prove anything. If we could prove this universe was the only one that is or ever could or will be, and that in being the only one, was so unimaginably unlikely to be like it is, THEN I think it's quantified unlikeliness would point strongly towards some meddler, even if it be spinoza's god, content to push buttons and twiddle levers.On the other hand, if our universe is the creation of some other universe's LHC, the very fact of their existence just indeed only kick the can down the road and it solves nothing, just creates for us a recursive riddle.It's not much use as a proof because it proves nothing (at least yet) - it's something we can neither prove nor disprove and doesn't count either way.One thing is sure though - wherever the universe came from, it's rules are concise, sane and complete to such a degree of perfection that now it is here (as far as we can tell, and we CAN tell a lot about our universe from inside it), we are assured more and more that it does NOT require somebody at the wheel to make it work.Indeed, as far as I can tell, life is inevitable in our universe, and intelligent life just as much so, given the space for experimentation.

Hi, greyseal.I agree with everything you said.The AP does appear in a bewildering array of flavors, none of which, of course, prove anything, but all of which are fodder for armchair speculation, giving us, if you will, one of Straggler's unevidenced possibilities. At its most rigorous, the AP merely warns us against our undeniable, as-we-find-us anthropic bias; at its most speculative, the AP borrows from QM to posit the necessity of multiverse observers to our universe's birth.I was merely looking for a place for a "supernatural" creator--in the "outside our nature" sense--because I first saw bluegene's theory as an attempt to eliminate logically any ground on which a creator could stand. That is clearly not bluegene's or Straggler's project; when I thought it was, it amused my philosophical contrary streak to look for that logical space in a fashion that would also confound religious supernaturalism.I personally see no requirement for--or likelihood of--a deity. Were I somehow to be persuaded otherwise, I would still see no reason to think we could have (or need) any accurate apprehension of it.Further, if I could (even more outlandishly) be persuaded of a god's existence AND of the accuracy of one of humanity's extant descriptions of that god, I would still see no reasons for worship in any of those descriptions; quite the contrary--I would more likely look for the means of organized resistance. I strongly agree.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

The supernatural is merely energy that its beliefs move people in a way to be more cooperative and at peace with themselves. It can also form in a negative response depending on what side of the coin you are on.

When has that happened? I think you need to merge your two statements:The supernatural moves people to negative responses against all others.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

So are we divided into 2 camps now.Camp 1. The supernatural is supernatural.Camp 2. The supernatural is supernatural.

Emphasis, sir, emphasis.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Hi, Straggler.All right: you talked me back into it again. This is a reply to Message 399 in the Peanut Gallery. Why is it that people always interpret frustration as a symptom of a greater psychological syndrome or disorder? Isn’t it equally likely that there are things out there that are legitimately frustrating? After all, I’m not the only one who found this frustrating.I feel like I work damn hard on each post, but don’t really get much in response except the same assertions as before I put all that effort into it. Somehow, everything I say gets interpreted as a demand to disprove the supernatural.I say, The assessment of confidence in science isn’t about how well it compares to supernatural alternatives: it’s about how it compares to naturalistic alternatives, and your very next response is, but, based on your reasoning, we can’t have confidence if there are supernatural alternatives.I don’t get it: I can’t figure out why you can’t accept this point. You don’t ever explain it: you just keep saying that my argument leads to the exact opposite conclusion of this point, even though this point is my argument.Here’s the point of it: confidence, in the sense used by science, comes from comparisons. This is why the unfalsifiability of supernature is a big deal. You can’t say you have confidence in one theory just because you have evidence that supports it: you also need a way to compare it to the alternatives. Positive evidence for one idea doesn’t mean much when evidence leaning the other way cannot exist. And, since the alternative is immune to testing by its very definition, such comparisons cannot be performed, and, consequently, confidence cannot be rightfully claimed.The implication of your argument is that everything that science can’t study is imaginary. By default, this precludes the supernatural from being anything but imaginary.----- First, I don't think I have any supernatural beliefs.Second, why do you think I have to believe in something to believe that it can't be handled with deductive logic?-----You also kept trying to get me to respond to something you said in Message 184. I have no idea what about that particular post you were referring to, but there is at least one point in it that I have not addressed, so I’ll address it here: Confidence comes from comparisons.Do you have confidence, right now, that, even if alien intelligence was discovered, your human imagination theory would still explain all supernatural beings?If so, then you are pretty indiscriminate about what you place confidence in.If not, then I have to ask you the follow-up question: Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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