Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

LOL. Okay... I'll assume you're just using the "drop it from my ass and see if it floats" criterion, unless you can show clearly how you differentiate supernatural from non-supernatural claims... without using the word supernatural, of course.ABE: How do you know?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Too sad. Anything of value to add, or are you going to stick with the fundamentalist name-calling strategies?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

First, thank you for being the only person to offer a definition. Second, I've another question:In what way does the supernatural have nothing to do with reality?I feel our definitions are mostly in agreement, but I'd like just a little more clarification.Again, thank you for a serious reply.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

quote:

---

cavediver in Message 346:
Looking at the devlopment of our understanding of the Universe over the past several thousand years, my overwhelming conclusion is that the supernatural is precisely that that has nothing to do with reality.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 348:
In what way does the supernatural have nothing to do with reality?

---

Do you find the supernatural to be, as a matter of definition, then, false and untrue?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Claims about the natural world are natural. Claims that do not involve the natural world are supernatural (as far as my definitionand those of many dictionariesis concerned). Remember, just because a claim uses three-letter words like 'god' or 'creator' does not mean it is supernatural; so long as it makes claims about the natural world, it is natural. If the statement makes no claims about the natural world, it is supernatural.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Perhaps, but what kind of examination? Only claims dealing with the natural world are subject to scientific examination. If the claims dealing with deities are of the type I mentioned earlier (those using "three-letter words like 'god' or 'creator'") and regard the natural world, then they are by composition a subset of all claims dealing with the natural world and are as such subject to scientific examination; if they do not deal with the natural world, they are not subject to scientific examinationthough, to a different type of examination, no doubt. Huh? If I associate you with a dubious claim, is that a smear on your reputation, or on the reputation of the one doing the association (myself)? Agreed. And? Who would want to support the existence of anything supernatural? Who would delude themself into believing they were even capable of such a thing? Likewise, who would delude themself into believing they were even capable of the opposite?JonEdited by Jon, : Plurality... Edited by Jon, : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

So, despite lack of faith in the supernatural, you believe the deity to be the one making the claims? No; just tells us that someone was wrong about their claim on the natural world. Tested by what means? There it is again... do you really believe these folk are having information relayed to them through these supernatural media? I think they just make it all up.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

quote:

---

onifre in Message 397:
... saying "God created the universe" would not be a supernatural claim.

---

This is right on the nose, and in line with what I had earlier stated: "just because a claim uses three-letter words like 'god' or 'creator' does not mean it is supernatural". I think we need to get past the practice of branding claims as supernatural simply because they sound fishy; it's bad science.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

That math is in no way necessarily tied to our reality is an argument I've made many times on these boards; I actually started a whole thread on the subject: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality. Math, however, is a system of description; when it is used to describe things of the natural world, its claims are very much natural and thus subject to scientific investigation.I don't think it would be proper to classify an entire system of reasoning as supernatural or natural; it is rather the claims made by these systems that we classify and then proceed to investigate using the appropriate methodologies.JonEdited by Jon, : Expanding...

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

That is a minor point. I think it is clear that we are not talking about the physical entity that is the claim, but rather the content of the claim. You may investigate that I am crazy and so that is why I've made such and such a claim, but this does nothing to address the content of the claim. My apologies for having not made this clear from the beginning.If it helps, we can agree that when we speak of a 'claim' it is the specific content to which we are referring and not the entity of the claim itself, whose origin may be anything. I also think it is pretty safe to assume that the word 'claim' has been used in this way throughout this thread.Anyone who has not used 'claim' in this way, but instead in the way pointed to by bluegenes, might want to step forward; it may clear up confusions.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

How is it that you are defining 'supernatural'?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I made no excuse. Some claims regarding gods are natural, some claims regarding gods are supernatural. Some claims regarding math are natural; some claims regarding math are supernatural. We look at the claim and decide from there. Is the whole system of math supernatural? Sure, in as much as its content has no necessary connection to the natural world whatsoever; it's like a languagethey're just made up and have nothing to do with the real world. They can be applied to the real world, in which case we test that application (the application being the content of the claim).Again, though, we're not talking about the claim itself or the communicative system employed to make the claim; we're just talking about its content. I guess this depends, then, on how one defines supernatural. In what way do you consider the supernatural to be a cultural construct?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Interesting; this is my understanding of what constitutes 'supernatural'. Either way you call it'cultural constructs' or 'supernatural'would you say the content of these things is something with which science should not concern itself? If it's clear that Sherlock Holmes is simply a fictional story, is it proper to investigate on it using the scientific method and then draw conclusions on it based on whether or not the things it contains are evidenced?I'm quite convinced doing so would be not just wrong, but meaning- and purposeless.JonEdited by Jon, : Less Not...

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 12:

Caf writes:

​

Before we can decide if all supernatural explanations have failed, we have to have some clear definition of what you mean as supernatural.

​

That which is inherently immune from material investigation of any sort?

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 26:
For the purposes of this thread I would suggest - The divine, the miraculous and/or that pertaining "to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws". And by "cannot" I mean inherenetly cannot. Not just that it is practically difficult to do so.

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 138:
Where supernatural explanations are posited it is implicit that the explanation in question (i.e. God in the example above) is itself inherently immune from material understanding or investigation.

---

How do you determine that a supernatural explanation has failed when you admit it is inherently impossible to investigate on an evidenced materialistic basis with no conformity to the natural world?Also, how do you reconcile this with the fact that claims about the origin of the universe and explanations for observable phenomena clearly do not fall into this definition? By your own admission such things are not supernaturalas they're easily investigated through material means and understandingsyet you regularly clump them in with the term 'supernatural':

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 7:
They must consider some aspect of nature to be best explained by the actual existence of the supernatural. Whether the phenomenon in question is the existence of the universe itself, the fact that humans across cultures display religious beliefs or some sort of internal experience - They are implicitly citing the supernatural explanation for said phenomenon as a valid one.

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 295:
So you think the existence of the supernatural has never been posited as the cause of any observable phenomenon?

---

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 300:
Do you think there is a supernatural causes for apples falling from trees?

---

This self-contradictory behavior is further exhibited in our volley here:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 301:

Jon writes:

​

We found a natural explanation for lightening, but our tests and resulting explanations had nothing to do with old Thor.

​

Well precisely. So has not the concept of supernatural Thor been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?

---

If the supernatural really is 'immune from material investigation' and 'neither derived from nor limited by natural law', how do you refute a 'supernatural' claim by means of natural explanations? Either your definitions for 'supernatural' are wrong or your attribution of 'supernatural' to certain of the above-quoted claims is misplaced. Otherwise, your definition of the term and your application as a description of certain claims is inconsistent and contradictory.JonEdited by Jon, : Clarifications

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Technically speaking, a strict empiricist should be agnostic to all matters supernatural, so long as 'supernatural' is defined the way you have defined it as being unrelated to the material world.Of course, suspension of gravity is not supernaturalgravity being a property of the natural world, so an empiricist is allowed to take an epistemological position without reprimand. There is really no issue here between agnosticism and the supernatural; along with empiricism, the relationship between these three is clear. The problem is, instead, your inconsistent and contradictory use of the term 'supernatural', which I raised earlier but with which you've avoided dealing. (See Message 421, for a most recent example.)Furthermore, an empiricist's agnosticism on a matter has no bearing on their confidence one way or the other in the issues the matter raises. In fact, when it comes to the supernatural, an honest empiricist will be agnostic of the supernatural while still maintaining 100% confidence that the supernatural is not real (as per the definition of 'empiricism'). Degrees of knowing and degrees of confidence are not by necessity related.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar