|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Ok I got my pantys in a wad. my bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Thirty seconds after you reply to this message all gravitational effects will be supernaturally suspended. If you are confident that this unfalsified and unevidenced possibility is unlikely to be correct please state for the record your basis for making this conclusion. I don't have any evidence that it won't happen, but that doesn't mean that I cannot be confident that it won't. My point is that my confidence doesn't follow from the inductive logic. No matter how many black ravens I observe, I'm still not showing that there isn't a white one out there somewhere. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have confidence that the black raven theory will continue to work. This has nothing to do with ravens. On what basis do you confidently conclude that gravity won't be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after responding to this post. My answer is obvious. The consistency of natural law and the deep unlikelihood of any entirely unevidenced supernatural interference. But as someone that believes in miracles you cannot make that claim. So on what basis do you reject this possibility as "unlikley"? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It doesn't seem that you're interested in the point I was trying to make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Unless disproven the existence of god remains a "possibility" (in the unfalsified sense) does it not? Shouldn't that read "the concept/s of god/s remain a possibility"...? For two reasons: 1) "god" doesn't represent any one thing; it can be lots of things and has been throughout history - For example, anyone claiming "god" is the sun has evidence to support the existence of the sun. If that's their concept of god, there is no issue. 2) The issue is more with the concepts than with an actual "god" type thing. We haven't gone past stage one, which is trying to understand the many concepts of god/s. Here is where the issue starts and ends, at the concepts. Humans are attributing all kinds of unknowable, unevidenced features and qualities to their concepts and that's where problems are. Can there exist something that can be refered to as a god? Sure, there could be many things that could be called god, or there could be a yet unknown force that can be called god. But what's all the other stuff about "outside the universe" and "outside of reality"? What are all these claims that things can break the laws of nature? What is this talk about something being derived from and not subject to the fundamental laws of physics? That's when the concepts take on a more fictional role. That's when the concepts become saturated in nonsensical terms. So I would say that God doesn't remain a possibility, because that word doesn't represent any one thing. When someone can say god is love, or god is energy, or god is light, or god is Christ, or god is Allah, which one do you pick as the actual representative? Which one concept is possible and which one isn't? Or are they all possible? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What point?
I will answer any point made explicitly to me. And how is asking you "On what basis do you confidently conclude that gravity won't be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after responding to this post." NOT specifically challenging your claims of non-inductivist thinking? Without a degree of inductivism you cannot be confident of anything at all. Can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Unless disproven the existence of god remains a "possibility" (in the unfalsified sense) does it not? If you choose to use the word 'possible' to mean 'not yet demonstrated to be impossible'. But I think that's misleading and dangerously open to equivication.. So I try not to.
The fact that the term "possibility" refers both to that which is positively evidenced as being something worthy of being considered possible Vs something that has no basis for belief at all other than it's status of being unfalsified is the problem here. ...The "possibility" issue is a a terminological problem that infests the whole of EvC debate. How do we solve it?
Ask for evidence that God is possible if someone claims that it is. And don't concede that God is possible just because you can't prove the contrary is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
God admittedly means many thing to many people.
Buz's God for example has been pretty much refuted because his version of God makes claims about the real world that have been falsified. But the whole god as the creator of the physical universe or the natural laws that govern it - That has not been "falsified". As such. Yes you can argue it is unknowable. Yes you can say it is as likely to actually exist as the celestial cows whose farts created the universe. But it is not "meaningless" or "nothing". in the sense you seem to be suggesting.
Oni writes: So I would say that God doesn't remain a possibility, because that word doesn't represent any one thing. Nor does the word "superhero". The fact that an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of imaginary, but very specific in their own right, concepts exists doesn't make the umbrella term itself meaningless. Spider-man is a superhero. So are Superman and Wolverine. "Superhero" is not a meaningless term because no such things exist. Nor is it meaningless because it is non-specific about what a superhero is. We have an umbrella definition.
Onio writes: Or are they all possible? Thor is a god. Yahweh is a god. Zeus is a god. RAZD's universe creating deity who plays no further part in the development of reality is a god. What is possible and what is not? Well we enter the "evidenced possibility" Vs "unevidenced possibility" realm again. Some gods are certainly more falsified than others. Other than that all we can say is that they are all equally baseless propositions and that the likelihood of the actual existence of any such supernatural entity is deeply improbable. To say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What point? The first one that I made when I entered this thread, from Message 286:
quote: I went even further:
quote: I will answer any point made explicitly to me. You totally avoided 75% of my post.
And how is asking you "On what basis do you confidently conclude that gravity won't be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after responding to this post." NOT specifically challenging your claims of non-inductivist thinking? I'm not claiming non-inductivist thinking, I'm challenging your conclusion logically following from the available evidence.
Without a degree of inductivism you cannot be confident of anything at all. Can you?
I don't have a problem with inductivism. I'm saying the conclusions your deriving from it are not logically following. Hell, even the wiki page on inductivism is takes the same route I am: Inductivism - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: If you choose to use the word 'possible' to mean 'not yet demonstrated to be impossible'. But I think that's misleading and dangerously open to equivication.. So I try not to. Again I agree. But the likes of RAZD and Bluejay will insist that the existence of the supernatural is "possible".
Mod writes: Ask for evidence that God is possible if someone claims that it is. And don't concede that God is possible just because you can't prove the contrary is true. Fine. But when confronting those who preach the gospel of agnosticism things are not as simple as that. They are asking how anyone can legitimately be atheistic towards something that is "possible". How do you deal with that? You have no choice but to distinguish between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities as far as I can see (which is what I end up attempting to do) Or come up with other terminological wizardry to the same effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I don't think your "inductive probability" argument has anything to do with anything I am saying. But I might be wrong. Let's find out based on a prediction derived from the conclusion I am making.
If I conclude that supernatural agents will not override gravitational effects 30 seconds after you respond to this post is that an argument derived from inductive probability? On what legitimate basis do you think I can make that conclusion? Or are you agnostic to that proposition? Because my estimation of the unlikelihood of the existence of the supernatural is made on the same basis as the conclusion that supernatural entities will probably not override gravity 30 seconds after your response. Can you not see that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If I conclude that supernatural agents will not override gravitational effects 30 seconds after you respond to this post is that an argument derived from inductive probability? That is not a logical conclusion derived from the available evidence. ABE: I just want to point out that this doesn't mean that you can't have any confidence that gravitational effects will continue to operate as usual.
Because my estimation of the unlikelihood of the existence of the supernatural is made on the same basis as the conclusion that supernatural entities will probably not override gravity 30 seconds after your response. Can you not see that? Yes, I see that. Too, your estimation of the unlikelihood of the existence of the supernatural is not a logical conclusion based on the available evidence. Do you see that? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
God admittedly means many thing to many people. Cool, we got that out of the way.
Buz's God for example has been pretty much refuted because his version of God makes claims about the real world that have been falsified. Not really though. Humans make the claim that their concept of god makes claims about the real word. There in lies the rub, "god" has said nothing at all.
But the whole god as the creator of the physical universe or the natural laws that govern it - That has not been "falsified". As such. Here's what you're saying: X as the creator of the universe has not been falsified. Can you see how that becomes a rather insignificant statement?
Nor does the word "superhero". Sure it does, it represents fictional characters that within the world of non-fiction make sense.
The fact that an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of imaginary, but very specific in their own right, concepts exists doesn't make the umbrella term itself meaningless. No not meaningless, in this particular case, but surely ambiguous to say the least. And frankly, how can the concepts be specific if, like you agreed, god means many things to many people. You have to admit, there is a vast difference conceptually between "God is the sun" and "God is an energy that exists outside of reality," no?
Thor is a god. Yahweh is a god. Zeus is a god. RAZD's universe creating deity who plays no further part in the development of reality is a god. These are human concepts, Straggler. Nothing more really. You didn't have to stop there, you could go on to say, the sun is god. Fire is god. Wind is god. Love is god. An extra-terrestrial being with super intelligence is god. Where does it end? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again I agree. But the likes of RAZD and Bluejay will insist that the existence of the supernatural is "possible". And you could say "Demonstrate this is true rather than demonstrating that its contrary hasn't been proven true (or cannot be proven true." - There are people on this board that insist on all sorts of things. Treat them the same: Demand evidence that god is in fact, possible.
They are asking how anyone can legitimately be atheistic towards something that is "possible". How do you deal with that?
Straightforwardly enough: It is 'possible' that guy over there owns Brooklyn Bridge and that it is 'possible' that if I give him a thousand pounds he'll give me the deeds. But I'm not going to. Since I'm not going to, that implies that I don't believe the claim.I am an aGuyOwnsBrookylnBridgeAndIsSellingItCheapist. I just ask Agnostics "Do you hold the belief "God exists"?" If they don't they are agnostic atheists like me. They probably just treat people that claim God differently than they do potential conmen: so I'll ask why. Possibly out of 'respect' or not wanting to be viewed as a Dickish Gnu Atheist.
You have no choice but to distinguish between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities as far as I can see (which is what I end up attempting to do) How about falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims, verified claims and unverified claims. You don't even have to suggest how they are verified or falsified. RAZD's God is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, for example. It is therefore implied that it is 'unevidenced' and 'not demonstrated to be impossible' without the ambiguous language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: quote: In the most fundemental way. It is a meaningless term precisely because it has never had any connection with reality. ... I thus conclude that the supernatural is synonymous with that that is not real, that that does not exist. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: You cannot refute something using empirical evidence when the something you are attempting to refute is in its very character non-empirical and beyond the realm of nature. Is you claiming that a phenomenon is beyond the realm of nature and thus beyond the realm of science. If so, how do you know that? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024