Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 46 of 207 (634842)
09-24-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chuck77
09-24-2011 7:01 AM


It _could be_...
Just because something can be explained in a natural terms doesn't mean it can't have a SN connection.
This is not a rational, or frankly even adult, position.
What you are saying here is this:
Either
A) You throw the switch on the wall and it makes a connection between the electricity carrying wire and the wire that leads to the light bulb thus allowing the electricity to reach the light bulb and for light to be generated.
OR
B) You throw the switch on the wall and Gunboor the Magical Invisible Elf casts his illumination spell on the bulb.
It _COULD_ be B. It doesn't matter that we understand each and every aspect of A. It doesn't matter that A sufficiently and accurately describes what's happening. It doesn't matter that every conceivable test indicates that A is 100% correct.
It still _COULD_ be B.
Can you come up with ANY scenario at all that doesn't have an infinite list of "COULD BE" alternatives using the supernatural?
If it's not Gunboor the elf, maybe it's Trillboo the elf. Or Bizzrat the Goblin. Or Kleemark the Wizard. etc etc etc
You are arguing that make believe is a valid alternative explanation to everyday events because we can't rule out make believe as a cause since it's make believe.
Come on. Grow up.
Edited by Admin, : Typos: through => throw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chuck77, posted 09-24-2011 7:01 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 09-24-2011 11:46 AM Nuggin has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 47 of 207 (634853)
09-24-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Nuggin
09-24-2011 10:30 AM


Re: It _could be_...
Nuggin writes:
Either
A) You throw the switch on the wall and it makes a connection between the electricity carrying wire and the wire that leads to the light bulb thus allowing the electricity to reach the light bulb and for light to be generated.
OR
B) You throw the switch on the wall and Gunboor the Magical Invisible Elf casts his illumination spell on the bulb.
It _COULD_ be B. It doesn't matter that we understand each and every aspect of A. It doesn't matter that A sufficiently and accurately describes what's happening. It doesn't matter that every conceivable test indicates that A is 100% correct.
I think the question is who or what put the switch, the wiring, the bulb and the electricity there in the first place that would allow "A" to happen.
AbE I suppose even more to the point is the question of where did the idea and the inspiration for the process described in "A" come from.
Edited by GDR, : AbE

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 09-24-2011 10:30 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 09-24-2011 12:59 PM GDR has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 207 (634862)
09-24-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
09-24-2011 11:46 AM


Re: It _could be_...
I think the question is who or what put the switch, the wiring, the bulb and the electricity there in the first place that would allow "A" to happen.
AbE I suppose even more to the point is the question of where did the idea and the inspiration for the process described in "A" come from.
You really think that Gribbooo the Elf King puts the light switches on walls?
Do I need to familiarize you with the concept of electricians?
I personally have installed a light switch. Did I require magical help to do so?
Is it possible for a human being to do anything? Walk? Eat? Shit? Without the aid of a tiny invisible demon or elf?
Is that what we're suppose to consider as a valid line of reasoning?
I ate a sandwich a couple hours ago. Later, I plan to get rid of what's left of it out the back end.
Do I need permission from Liglog the Toilet Troll in order to do that? How would I know if I got the permission or not? After all, Liglog the Toilet Troll is undetectable.
And _infinite_ number of imaginary creatures with an _infinite_ list of imaginary powers. All of these should be considered as valid considerations?
Seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 09-24-2011 11:46 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 09-24-2011 4:30 PM Nuggin has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 49 of 207 (634900)
09-24-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Nuggin
09-24-2011 12:59 PM


Re: It _could be_...
Well I think the sarcastic response tells us more about you than serving to advance the discussion but I digress.
Of your 2 options "A" is the obvious response. Of course electricity exists and is the ultimate answer from what we know, but what we don't know why it is that electrical forces exist at all?
We can look at the DNA records, the fossil records etc and come to the conclusion that we are an evolved species. We can look at the cosmological record and suggest that the BB is a point at which T=0. We can look at our physiological makeup and see that we have intelligence and emotions.
The question is why does all of this exist at all. Did all of this come about from an intelligent source, which presumably would be supernatural or is it from a totally natural non-intelligent source?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 09-24-2011 12:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 09-24-2011 8:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 50 of 207 (634913)
09-24-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
09-23-2011 6:20 PM


Re: in the possesion and influence of spirits? (please breath into this analyser ...)
Hi Rahvin, (& readers),
Apologies for the length, but I feel the level of detail is important for clarity. I will provide a summary at the end, and you can chose to respond to those points, keeping the details fleshed out here in mind. This is taking me a fair bit of time, so your consideration is appreciated. A side benefit (to others, anyway) is that I won't be spending this time on other responses today.
I don;t think we're here to discuss whether ghosts/spirits actually exist or whether appealing to the popularity of an idea lends weight to its probability of accuracy. It's just an example of something usually labelled "supernatural." That's all.
Correct, the purpose of the thread is discussion of how you can, or cannot, study the supernatural. Spirits are just an example that can be discussed.
All you're doing with those examples is subdividing the sets {exist} and {not exist}. It's irrelevant. ...
Actually, I am subdividing the set of {supernatural possibilities} into sets that {can possibly be studied} and {cannot possibly be studied} to see if further study of the aspects that {can possibly be studied} can provide insight or evidence for the {exist} or {not exist} sets, and not confuse them with discussion of the aspects that {cannot possibly be studied} and thus are indeterminate.
This is absolutely relevant to the topic.
... It's conceptually possible that aspects of reality might exist yet be undetectable to us. In fact, it's historically true - quarks and gluons, as random examples, were for the great majority of human experience, completely undetectable.
The existence of "quarks and gluons, as random examples" is inferred from their (theoretically) detectable actions, yes? So you would agree that IF spirits are members of the {exist} set, that THEN it could be possible for their existence to be inferred from their (theoretically) detectable actions, yes? Poltergeists, for one example, possession for another.
I'm not at all talking about the sets {known to exist} and {not known to exist} or {known to not exist}. I'm talking about the sets {exist} and {not exist}. In every single case, either a thing exists, or it does not, correct?
Mundanely, tautologically true, but pointless without relation to knowledge (tentative or absolute) of the facts or the ability to study and test them.
What we currently know boils down to a matter of probability assigned by previous observation and testing, but what exists is irrelevant to our knowledge - the territory is independant of the map. North America existed long before Columbus or Eric the Red.
What we know (tentatively) is inferred from the evidence and deduced from testing of the evidence, and is necessarily an approximation of what is real - it is the map, not the territory. The more it is tested, the more accurate the map, and the higher the confidence we have that the conclusions approximate reality. The approximation is improved by discarding falsified concepts, thereby narrowing the possibilities, and the confidence is improved by undertaking additional (and targeted) testing without falsification or false results occurring.
Stop. Is that "non-natural behavior?" Or is it simply "behavior not in accordance with currently understood natural law?" In other words, a mystery?
By labelling the phenomenon "un-natural" or "supernatural," it seems to me that you're identifying a mystery, a gap in our understanding and saying "wow, this doesn't fit with what I think I know, so I must never be able to really know it, it's compeltely untestable."
Sorry, I should have used "un=natural" there instead of non-natural. My mistake. I've corrected that post to say: "As an example, the attribute of ghosts/spirits to move through walls\etc. would be "un-natural" (unexplained?)(a) behavior, ..." where the (a) footnote refers to the edit made.
Thank you for catching me on not using the terms I introduced (Message 17) to distinguish what can theoretically be testable from what cannot theoretically be testable. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
quote:
natural vs un-natural ... vs a-natural? -- a proposal of terms
Perhaps we should recognize\define\use "natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science (which should be rather tautological, but done to make a point),
And recognize\define\use "un-natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge(1) -- which would also include sasquatch, aliens, and faster than light neutrinos, as well as some supernatural aspects.
And then recognize\define\use "everything else" to be both non-natural & non-unatural ... or "a-natural" - things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT be studied by science for various reasons.
Thus aspects of ghosts that can be detected\studied by science would be "un-natural" phenomena, while aspects of god/s that cannot be detected\studied by science would be "a-natural" phenomena.
Supernatural(2) aspects, such as the ability to fly by "magic" would be detectable "un-natural" phenomena, while something like {where god/s live} could be outside the capability of science to detect\observe\test\etc and would then be "a-natural"
Note that these "examples" are only for illustration of the differences, and I offer these terms as a means to provide clarity ...
(bold added, for the footnotes see Message 17)
If you can think of better terminology or symbolic representation, I'm open to suggestions (perhaps "?-natural" instead of "un-natural" and "x-natural" for "a-natural"? would those be less confusing?).
By labelling the phenomenon "un-natural" or "supernatural," it seems to me that you're identifying a mystery, a gap in our understanding and saying "wow, this doesn't fit with what I think I know, so I must never be able to really know it, it's compeltely untestable."
No, what is untestable would be a-natural (or x-natural) by the above terminology, introduced to prevent\reduce this confusion.
Un-natural (or ?-natural) would include unexplained phenomena, such as aliens and sasquatches and some supernatural aspects. We don't know if natural explanations can apply (including ones that haven't been derived yet), it's not limited to supernatural and supernatural is not necessarily limited to un-natural (or ?-natural).
Identifying a "mystery" Un-natural (or ?-natural) phenomena means that we can then target them for further study, and see if we can determine what kind of explanations can be derived.
Clear as mud?
That's not the proper response to a mysterious question. The proper response is to accept that you don;t understand the phenomenon, and try to come up with some tests to determine what mechanism is at work.
and what you can reasonably test and what you cannot reasonably test, how those tests would provide bonafide positive and negative results, and how you could guard against false positives or negatives.
... "Walking through walls" isn't even all that special - certain forms of matter like neutrinos pass through walls all the time. Electromagnetic fields can pass through most walls as well, which is why I'm able to post this despite the fact that my wireless access point is on the other side of a concrete pillar at the moment, and why my cell phone works indoors.
So ghost images could be radio\tv type waves. That's testable: would finding radio\tv type waves be positive evidence of spirits or a false positive? Would not finding radio\tv type waves be negative evidence of spirits or a false negative?
Does the image need to actually go through the wall or just disappear as it comes to the wall?
Identifying a mystery just doesn't mean you identify the phenomenon as some brand-new special subset that somehow disqualifies it from natual laws. Mysterious phenomenon, in fact, are exactly what help us the most in determining what the real natural laws are.
Remember, a scant few hundred years ago, Lord Kelvin identified the response of muscles to conscious thought as something "infinitely beyond" human understanding. This tendency to worship one's own ignorance by revering the mysteriousness of mysteries rather than trying to just figure out what's really going on is fascinating.
Which is beside the point of what you can reasonably test and what you cannot reasonably test, how those tests would provide both bonafide positive and bonafide negative results, and how you could guard against false positives and false negatives.
The Ben Franklin analogy again: if a Ben Franklin Wannabe (BFW) was flying a kite in a rainstorm, without a means to test for static electricity, with lightening striking the kite, could he rationally conclude:
  1. that there is electricity in lightening?
  2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
    or
  3. that the existence of electricity is NOT tested?
Now let's say he has a bottle with a balloon over the end attached to the (wet part of the) string. Our BFW has not tested this apparatus with static electricity, under a variety of conditions, to show that the balloon only inflates when static electricity is present and does not inflate when static electricity is absent.
  1. the balloon inflates; can he conclude:
    1. that there is electricity in lightening?
    2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
    3. that something causes the balloon to inflate(*)?
    or
  2. the balloon does NOT inflate; can he conclude:
    1. that there is electricity in lightening?
    2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
    3. that the mechanism does not test for electricity?
(*) - it's a dark and stormy night: he holds the bottle over a candle to observe the balloon ... minutes pass ...
You need to know that your test mechanism will produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results.
The question isn't whether it's a "natural" phenomenon or an "unnatural" phenomenon. The question is, what is the real mechanism at work in this case?" In any case with a mysterious question, we have to try to differenciate between many potential hypotheses to see which is the closest to reality. If we observe a parrtern of numbers that goes {2, 4, 6}, the rule "the number increases by two each time" fits equally well as the rule "the number increases each time" or even "any selection of numbers at all." That's the entire point of investigating a phenomenon - in large part you just have to describe the phenomenon by what you can test to be not happening.
The question should be "does the mechanism of posession exist or not," not "is the mechanism 'natural.'"
The question is whether the appearance of possession is properly explained by a new mechanism (that may or may not be "natural" - according to current thought\knowlede\belief) or only by existing "natural" mechanisms.
The question is whether or not you can test for it with a test mechanism that will produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results.
Test mechanism
validated results
positive negative
bonafide bonafide
positive result
bonafide
negative result
false false
positive result
false
negative result
If all you can test for, if the only test mechanisms you have that are validated (ie tested, calibrated and known(1) to produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results) are known(1) natural mechanism, then are you really able to test for supernatural presence/essence.
If it's observable, RAZD, then it is testable. It may not be easy to do so, but that hardly justifies the creation of a brand new set of ambiguous phenomenon called {supernatural}.
Curiously, the "phenomenon called {supernatural}" is not being invented here, but is older than science, and what we are discussing is the question of whether or not we can test for "supernatural" essence/s to see if they fit in the {exist} or {don't exist} sets.
If it's not observable, meaning it cannot be detected with any of the senses, then how would you ever get the idea that it happens in the first place? ...
By inferring that it may exist from other evidence, whether that evidence is anecdotal religious texts (that may or may not be true) or some other source. The preponderance of spirits in (virtually all?) most religions and the preponderance of narratives about possession by spirits, would make it a good target for shooting practice, yes?
OR we can get the idea by inferring that it may exist from observable non-normal/abnormal behaviors that would be consistent with a hypothetical possession, as you said:
quote:
... It's conceptually possible that aspects of reality might exist yet be undetectable to us. In fact, it's historically true - quarks and gluons, as random examples, were for the great majority of human experience, completely undetectable.
... their presence was (and still is) inferred\deduced from observed behavior in the theoretical patterns, and not directly observable, "meaning it cannot be detected with any of the senses" - correct?
... If I can observe a mysterious human-looking figure or other object passing through a wall, then I can try to test under what circumstances this phenomenon seems to happen; test whether some substances are permeable and some are not; see whether the object responds to various stimuli; etc....
If someone reports "a mysterious human-looking figure or other object passing through a wall" and you cannot repeat the experience, does that mean that the concept is invalid or untested? If you do see such an event, does that mean that the concept is valid or tested?
When testing for permeability, how do you know what level is required? If you find impermeable substances where the puported wall passing occurred, does that mean that the concept is invalid or untested? If you find permeable substances, that allow liquid or gas but not your solid hand to pass, does that mean that the concept is valid or tested?
... "Posession" may be extremely difficult to differentiate from mental illness ...
Agreed. Particularly when there is a long tradition of labelling people with mental illness because of behavior that is not understood, it is kind of a catch-all, grab-basket, cubbyhole classification, rather than a well-defined one.
However, I note that not all possessions need be malevolent, some may be benevolent, such as a person saying that a spirit moved them to do {X}. In this regard it would seem (to me) that this is possibly the most commonly reported experience of supernatural essence\presence.
Further, it is conceivably possible to transport and study a possessed person, as compared to ghosts, which seem to be cantankerous at best.
In my mind this may be the best candidate for further study. Certainly it could be used as a test pilot to use in discussion of how we can study the supernatural.
... or powerful suggestion and the like, but again - if someone thinks they've seen it happen to themselves or others, then they've observed it and we can test it. Does a posessed individual respond to psychiatric medication? To verbal stimuli? Does it only happen in specific locations and conditions? To specific individuals who may share a common trait? To animals? What would be an indication of "posession" that differenciates it from "mental illness" so that we can tell which phenomenon we're studying in a given individual?
The proper question/s would be does a possessed person respond differently to psychiatric medication than a non-possessed person? etc.
If you assume a priori that response to psychiatric medication is evidence of mental illness ("or powerful suggestion and the like), rather than possession, then have you really tested for possession?
The question isn't whether it's a "natural" phenomenon or an "unnatural" phenomenon. The question is, what is the real mechanism at work in this case?" In any case with a mysterious question, we have to try to differenciate between many potential hypotheses to see which is the closest to reality. If we observe a parrtern of numbers that goes {2, 4, 6}, the rule "the number increases by two each time" fits equally well as the rule "the number increases each time" or even "any selection of numbers at all." That's the entire point of investigating a phenomenon - in large part you just have to describe the phenomenon by what you can test to be not happening.
The question should be "does the mechanism of posession exist or not," not "is the mechanism 'natural.'"
But that is the question. Just asking that question though, does not tell you if your best guess of "many potential hypotheses" accurately explains the situation or just the tested aspects of the situation.
Once again - that a phenomenon may be difficult to investigate, but if a phenomenon is observable in the first place, then further observations can be made to investigate what's going on. Sometimes we don't have the tools to really figure it out; sometimes we don't even have the tools to make the tools that would let us test another phenomenon that would let us create the tools to even observe what's really going on. At no point does that make the phenomenon some super-special set that takes exception to reality's laws. We don;t know all of reality's laws with absolute certainty; that much is going to be true for the forseeable future, and so the proper response to a mysterious question is "let's investigate and see what's going on; if we can't do it yet, let's try to find out what we might need to do so; and until then, we'll accept that we just don't know. Yet.
Fully agree.
summary points
  1. the purpose of the thread is discussion of how we can, or cannot, study the supernatural.
  2. The purpose is to see if we can determine if they {exist} or {don't exist} or that the question cannot be determined
  3. Spirits are just an example of a fairly common supernatural concept that can be discussed\used\tested.
  4. For clarity, I have divided the set of {supernatural possibilities} into
    1. Sets that {can possibly be studied} and
    2. Sets that {cannot possibly be studied}, in order to
    3. See if further study of the aspects that {can possibly be studied} can
      • provide insight or evidence for the {exist} set or
      • provide insight or evidence for the {not exist} set, and
      • Not confuse them with discussion of the aspects that {cannot possibly be studied} (and thus are indeterminate at this time).
  5. Additionally, for clarity of discussion, I have defined three categories\sets based on our current knowledge and testing ability:
    1. "Natural" - which includes all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by current science, and explained by current scientific knowledge(1),
    2. "Un-natural" (or ?-natural) - which includes all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge(1), and which are not (yet) currently explained by current scientific knowledge(1), and
    3. "A-natural" (or x-natural) - which includes things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT (yet) be studied by science for various reasons.
  6. What can we reasonably test
    1. Do test mechanisms exist that are validated (ie tested, calibrated and known(1)) to) produce
      • bonafide positive results, and
      • bonafide negative results.
    2. Does the test methodology protect against
      • false positive results, and
      • false negative results.
    3. Infer whether may (or may not) exist from observable non-normal/abnormal behaviors that would be consistent with a hypothetical possession and inconsistent with other explanations,
    4. With no confusion of the tests\methodologies\results with what we can NOT reasonably test at this time.
  7. Spiritual possession may be the best candidate to study initially.
  8. The results may be that we don't know, and need to try something else.
conclusions
Personally, I do not see it being possible to test any real supernatural aspects that may be in the {exist} set, because in order to properly validate (ie tested, calibrated and known(1)) to produce proper results) such a test you would need bonafide positive and negative results, which would make the whole exercise unnecessary.
Test mechanism
validated results
positive negative
bonafide bonafide
positive result
bonafide
negative result
false false
positive result
false
negative result
This means you can only logically test for the effects of supernatural presence\essence on natural systems that can be tested. Problems here are (a) the strong possibility of false negative results, and (b) results that are confused with and ascribed to natural causes.
Thus we have to work from inference from indirect evidence, rather than direct observation and deduction, and thus we need to practice extreme care not to make premature conclusions, pro or con.
(whew)
Enjoy.

Notes:
(1) - know\known\knowledge with scientific tentativity
Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 09-23-2011 6:20 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2011 7:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 77 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 4:23 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 104 by Rahvin, posted 09-27-2011 2:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 207 (634916)
09-24-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
09-24-2011 7:34 PM


Woo
The woo is strong with this one...
Rather than torture logic till it squeals (as do we), all you need to do is provide evidence of the supernatural, any deities, spirits, or any of the rest. If there is real evidence, we'll all have to admit it.
You are so logical in all other areas, but when it comes to your own personal woo you go all haywire on us.
[amateur psychologist] Could the problem be that you have beliefs but doubts, and are trying to reinforce your beliefs? [/amateur psychologist]
Truly, those unending threads where you torture logic are wearing thin. Either you have evidence or you don't. It's that simple.
Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2011 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 4:20 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 52 of 207 (634920)
09-24-2011 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
09-24-2011 7:34 PM


Re: in the possesion and influence of spirits? (please breath into this analyser ...)
Even assuming you have a valid point, it can only suffocate beneath so much verbiage. If you have to write that much to get your point across you either don't have a point or are splitting minute hairs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2011 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2011 10:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 207 (634923)
09-24-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
09-24-2011 4:30 PM


Re: It _could be_...
Well I think the sarcastic response tells us more about you than serving to advance the discussion but I digress.
How was my response sarcastic in any way?
The claim was that unknown undetectable magical forces _could_ be behind any natural function we observe.
That claim automatically includes everything I mentioned.
You can't prove that Grimlox the Goblin is NOT responsible for the creation of all sandwiches because the criteria of "only reality is real" has been obliterated.
Once you toss out "reality is real" and substitute "all answers are equally valid" then there is no answer to anything.
The question is why does all of this exist at all.
Because it does. You don't need to attribute it to a wizard, Jewish or otherwise. Things exist. If they didn't exist, no one would be around to discuss the fact that they didn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 09-24-2011 4:30 PM GDR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 207 (634932)
09-24-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
09-24-2011 8:25 PM


Re: in the possesion and influence of spirits? (please breath into this analyser ...)
Even assuming you have a valid point, it can only suffocate beneath so much verbiage. If you have to write that much to get your point across you either don't have a point or are splitting minute hairs.
Now if only someone had said that to Immanuel Kant.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 207 (634948)
09-25-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
09-24-2011 8:32 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Percy writes:
no matter that in every instance of a scientifically investigated phenomenon traced to a cause, that cause turned out to be natural.
Ok, if you say so. Im sure there are some things still unexplained that were Scientifically investigated. Some things will never be explained and some of them are SN IMO.
There is only two possibilities. Super-natural OR natural.
The SN we can't see, or detect, so we can't test it. The only things we can test are natural that might be the cause of the SN.
It's religious or at least superstitious or primitive people who attribute what we don't know to the supernatural.
Hahah Well,umm, we are great apes after all right? So calling me primitive is a compliment? Thanks.
As time goes by science demonstrates that more of more of these phenomena are natural.
I don't follow? That is wonderful that Science would very much like to take all the great wonders that are not explained and make them theirs and put their stamp of approval on all of them as natural and de-god them. Wonderful. Until then, it's all just "I dont know, atleast im honest about it" they say. Yes, such humility those Science folk.
Such humble humble people. Just look around this particular thread for such examples.
It's the same exact thing when we ask evolutionists about our origins. They say we only deal with current life. It's so very convienient.
Science(most sciences) don't care anything about origins or how things started or got here only what we have now. Wonderful, but it doesn't give them the right to label all natural things as having a natural origin. They don't know. You don't know.
Until they know, the jury is still out and all they did was explain how it works in the natural but not where it came from or how it originated.
Science doesn't believe that what we don't know is supernatural.
Of course. Why would Science, which studies natural processes, care about the SN? Science could care less just ask Richard Dawkins.
I know that. What im saying is Science is god to some people(like you) and people like me (the primitive folk) believe it doesn't have all the answers. Im not at all against Science. It's great. I just don't hold it above everything else. It explains the natural and how some things operate. It doesn't mean once they explain that the SN is refuted. That's just silly.
What I'm wondering is how you believe study of the supernatural should be conducted?
I don't know. There may be some ways but if it can be tested then it's not SN right? Isn't that what you would say?
Isn't this whole thread a set up? Mod is trying to make us look even stupider than what people already think?
See Nuggin's condescending, ignorant, wimpy, cop-out reply to me Message 46 about how I should "grow up". Anyone who believes there is more to life than what we see is a "dreamer". A "delusional whack job" and the best one "uneducated". We need to "grow up" and think for ourselves. Get "educated" as they say, "take a look at what Science is saying, be free, open you mind". etc etc etc etc...
Well, as far as I know, science doesn't know a lot of things and that's fine, but it only deals with the natural, so why should I be concerned about science when dealing with the SN? I have my trusted Bible for that and you and the other educated people here can have the God delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 4:02 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-25-2011 8:59 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 11:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 56 of 207 (634953)
09-25-2011 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 1:35 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
quote:
Ok, if you say so. Im sure there are some things still unexplained that were Scientifically investigated. Some things will never be explained and some of them are SN IMO.
That doesn't contradict what Percy said. Percy said that whenever we have found a cause it is natural. If it is unexplained then we haven't found a cause.
quote:
It's the same exact thing when we ask evolutionists about our origins. They say we only deal with current life. It's so very convienient.
Of course that isn't true. What you've doubtless been told is that the origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. And that is true. It isn't true that scientists aren't studying the origin of life - they are, and they keep making progress.
quote:
I don't know. There may be some ways but if it can be tested then it's not SN right? Isn't that what you would say?
Isn't this whole thread a set up? Mod is trying to make us look even stupider than what people already think?
Not at all. If the supernatural has effects on the natural world, those effects can be studied. For instance if prayer is at all effective it should be statistically visible and there have been studies trying to investigate that. Likewise, as has been mentioned there is a way to test out-of-body experiences (place items where they could only be seen by the patient if they had a genuine OOB).
If you take a serious discussion as a "set-up" maybe it is because you aren't up to it. In fact your suspicious and hostile reaction does a very good job of making you look bad.
quote:
See Nuggin's condescending, ignorant, wimpy, cop-out reply to me Message 46 about how I should "grow up". Anyone who believes there is more to life than what we see is a "dreamer". A "delusional whack job" and the best one "uneducated". We need to "grow up" and think for ourselves. Get "educated" as they say, "take a look at what Science is saying, be free, open you mind". etc etc etc etc...
In fact Nuggin had a valid point. It's always possible to invent ad-hoc additions to anything we know. But if you're reduced to that then you are almost certainly wrong. And for all that you might quibble at his wording I don't think that it is any worse than some of the things you've done here.
In fact if you don't want to look bad then I have to suggest that you work at reducing your bias, getting your facts right and understanding the posts that you are replying to. You have potential, but a lot of it is wasted right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 1:35 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 6:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 207 (634956)
09-25-2011 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
09-24-2011 7:51 PM


Re: Woo
Here is what a (previous?) member said to another member here: Message 21
Silent H writes:
To be honest, while I sometimes think you need to increase your endurance to reading and understanding complex pieces
Coyote writes:
The woo is strong with this one...
See Silent H above. Yeah, seemingly stronger than your non-comment. Nice going in adding to the actual debate which Zen Deist has certainly done so far. You on the other hand?
all you need to do is provide evidence of the supernatural, any deities, spirits, or any of the rest. If there is real evidence, we'll all have to admit it.
Wow Coyote. That sure is a fabulous comment. So that's it ehe? End of debate?
[amateur psychologist] Could the problem be that you have beliefs but doubts, and are trying to reinforce your beliefs? [/amateur psychologist]
Real mature dude. Real...mature.
Truly, those unending threads where you torture logic are wearing thin. Either you have evidence or you don't. It's that simple.
See Silent H. above...again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2011 7:51 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 58 of 207 (634960)
09-25-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
09-23-2011 8:31 PM


Re: Allies
Percy writes:
As to what Nwr is referring to, Thor and lightning wasn't his example,..
No it was mine.
Percy writes:
but all he meant was that when lightning is given a supernatural explanation, such as "Thor did it," that science shows that lightning has a natural explanation.
But I know from past experience that Nwr doesn't think that scientific theories describe or explain nature. So he cannot of meant what you think he meant.
If we are to study the supernatural (as per the thread title) then we need to know what it is we are talking about. My point was that when we talk about phenomena being supernatural (e.g. thunder and lightning) in most cases what we are actually talking about is the cause of that phenomenon. Did the ancients point at lightning and say "That is supernatural" - No. They invented "magical" (i.e. supernatural) entities to which they attributed the cause of these observed phenomenon.
This is a subtle difference. But in the context of "studying the supernatural" it is (I think) a relevant one.
Percy writes:
He didn't mean that science provides Thor a natural explanation.
Obviously not. That isn't what I said.
Percy writes:
Over time this process of providing natural explanations for the supernatural reduces the breadth of the religious domain, and he thinks that religion might be better off claiming that nature is God.
It may well be a good strategic move on the part of theists to do that. Probably because the phrase "nature is God" is essentially meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 09-23-2011 8:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 59 of 207 (634961)
09-25-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chuck77
09-24-2011 7:01 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Chuck do you think scientific investigation has to all practical intents and purposes refuted the existence of the Norse god Thor?
Chuck writes:
Is Science trying to explain where life came from thru the TOE?
Not the ToE no. It is a separate (but obviously) related branch of science.
Would a full scientific understanding of abiogenesis effectively eliminate any "spark of life" type theistic claims in your view?
In general - Is it ever legitimate to invoke a supernatural explanation where a highly evidenced naturalistic cause is scientifically known?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chuck77, posted 09-24-2011 7:01 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:05 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 60 of 207 (634962)
09-25-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
09-23-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Allies
The irony of you talking about a "principle of clarity" is almost too much for me to bear.....
But as for your position on the role and nature of science. You have been asked. And you have failed to answer.
Message 188 and upthread for anyone interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 09-23-2011 9:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024