Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Of course it does. False by what standard? It is certainly someone's 'fault' if they conclude the theory false because they judge it on an inappropriate standard, or perhaps because they could not read the scale, or committed some other human error/foul dealings. By the definition I use, no, it does not. But as you are the one making the arguments, I think it would be better to understand your definition, and so far you still give vague incomplete definitions that are not in the least overly useful. If we used my definitions, your argument wouldn't even exist; so I don't think you want to use those. These conclusions do not derive from your experiment, nor from the results of that experiment. Furthermore, I am confused as to what you mean by 'a-sacrificed'. Also, I am not sure how the crops doing better 'pre-sacrifice' could lead us to conclude sacrifices increase crop yield. It is possible I am missing something here; it seems that if I assume your experiment in case (1) and (3) to involve the performance of a sacrifice and your experiment in (2) to not, I can sort of understand a point, but I am not sure that is what you mean. Could you elaborate on this, and possibly include other potential results? I am not sure your @#$ adequately describes all the possible results and the possible conclusions to be drawn from them. This is possible, but I am thinking I have not. It still appears that you are drawing conclusions from the experiment regarding forces for which the experiment was not designed to test. The accusation of 'special pleading' was made regarding your apparent treatment of tests for Mubu differently than you would a test for something else that you did not consider 'supernatural', primarily in how you are drawing conclusions and the conclusions you are drawing. I wasn't accusing you of not looking under enough beds for Mubu; my apologies if it came off that way.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Edit (this is the best I could remember of my reply):

​

You keep asking me what I mean by supernatural and then completely ignoring what I say.

​

That was something of a rhetorical question, which I answered only one statement later.

​

A concept is supernatural if it is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and is itself thus deemed to be materially inexplicable.

​

Okay, excellent starting point. And since this argument keeps going in circles, I think it would be beneficial if we'd begin afresh with this definition as center. My next question, based on this definition:

​

Is it possible to scientifically test things that are 'neither derived from nor subject to natural law' and are 'thus deemed to be materially inexplicable'? If so, how can it be done? If not, why is it not possible?

​

Thanks,
Jon

​

Edited by Jon, : I lost my original reply and had to come up with a new one... Hopefully this one makes sense, though it was kind of rushed and done from a shoddy memory.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Of course it doesn't. But wait - since it is a debate, I'll say more!By "inherently 'unevidencible'" you either mean1) Cannot be falsified: In which case I do not feel the claim is inherently unevidencible.2) Cannot be verified: In which case, I'm not trying to verify it.Either way - it doesn't apply. Perhaps you can try something better than gainsaying if you want to continue down this line of argument? Logic. You are the one that said a supernatural claim could not be tested and failed, not me. I said you could. I gave you a definition that while incomplete was specific enough to allow for a falsifiable supernatural hypothesis. Then I provide you with a test to show that your argument was false. Yes, confused seems to be about right. Let me try again, without assuming you understand the basic setup.Apparatus1,000 fields
Enough seeds to grow 1,000 fields worth of crops
Sacrifices
Common senseExperimentSew seeds in the fields.
Randomly assign each field a letter, A or B.
If a field is part of group A - sacrifice a goat to Mubu.
If part of group B - do not sacrifice a goat to Mubu.
Send postgrads into the fields to record results. Do not tell them which field is in which group.Results and conclusionsIf crops that are grown after a sacrifice to Mubu do better than crops that are grown without a sacrifice to Mubu -
then sacrificing to Mubu increases crop yield.If crops that are grown with no sacrifice to Mubu do better than crops that are grown with the sacrifice to Mubu -
then not sacrificing to Mubu increases crop yield.If crops that are grown after a sacrifice to Mubu do no better than crops that are grown without a sacrifice to Mubu -
then Sacrificing to Mubu has no more effect on crop yield than not sacrificing to Mubu. I think it is adequate, if you want to include other possible results and the conclusions you might draw from them, let me know what they are. Replace Mubu the immaterial agent with Mubu the pesticide (and replace 'sacrifices to' with 'application of' and I'll stick by the reasoning. No special pleading involved there I'm afraid.

Thank you for laying out a good experiment along with all its possible results and the conclusions that would be from them derivable. Let's discuss them: I find it interesting that you say this. Actually, it had been my opinion for several posts that you did not believe it possible to prove Mubu's crop influence given a 'better post-sacrifice yield':

quote:

---

Mod in Message 505:
How one might provide supporting evidence for such a supernatural entity is not important to the point.

---

quote:

---

Mod in Message 489:

​

So if we were to see a positive influence on crop yields, would we be able to declare the 'supernatural hypothesis' in this case vindicated?

​

No - the supernatural hypothesis as stated is not necessarily verifiable but the test proposed was for falsification.

---

It was, actually, my original suspicion that your test was faulty, not in its methodology, but in the conclusions you attempted to form it draw. And now, with your views more clearly laid out, I think, I am in a position to demonstrate how and why I feel this way. Earlier I had stated:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 509:
In the case of Mubu, either the conclusion you are drawing is not wholly supported by the results of the test, or an opposite set of results (showing positive crop response) should yield the opposite conclusion (that sacrifices to Mubu makes crops bigger).

---

I believe you to be making the first error: the conclusion you are drawing is not wholly supported by the results of the test. You say that replacing Mubu and friends with other things does not impact the validity of the reasoning behind your test: So, let's do it!Example:The ancient spirit god: Turdung.
The age-old belief: Sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield.
The test: Two fields, one in which no sacrifice is made, one in which a sacrifice is made.
The possible results; conclusions:
(1) Crops are grown more poorly in the field with a sacrifice; NOT sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield.
(2) Crops are grown equally well in both fields; sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting has no effect on yield.
(3) Crops are grown better in the field with a sacrifice; sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield. All hail Turdung!If your reasoning is such that an increase in yield allows us to set to rest our supernatural claim as confirmed: ... then in all cases of (3), the reality of Turdung's influence on crop yields given the proper sacrifice of cow feces is upheld.Facts: We know that spreading cow shit on a field increases crop growth; we also know Turdung to have, almost literally, been plucked from my ass only minutes ago. Spreading shit on the field has a positive effect, but we know Turdung to be in no way involved. Given the right inputs, though, your test allows this erroneous conclusion, so certainly the test is in error. Where is it in error? Simple, your test does not allow you to draw conclusions regarding the 'supernatural' but only the natural. Our results say nothing about Turdung and they say nothing about Mubu; they just tell us stuff about cow shit and goat killingsuch things being, unarguably, entirely natural.Now, you've been wanting me to reply to your old post (Message 465), and so here it is:You need to come up with a different method for testing for the supernatural. It is clear that your test is flawed, and so cannot be trusted to yield accurate results; as such, we cannot be sure, based on your test, that any 'supernatural hypotheses' have, indeed, failed.Jon
For the record:

I am not sure your @#$ adequately describes all the possible results and the possible conclusions to be drawn from them.

​

I think it is adequate, if you want to include other possible results and the conclusions you might draw from them, let me know what they are.

​

I meant to fill in @#$; that is just a placeholder I use. I was not intending to curse your post.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

What other tests for supernatural claims would you have science examine if not the claims made with a supernatural basis? You are not playing the extreme "shift the goalposts," are you?Science examines claims which religionists make that rely on the supernatural. For example, some claim a 6-10k year old earth based on divine scripture (the literal word of god), while some claim a worldwide flood about 4,350 years ago based on the same scripture.These are claims made which pit the "supernatural" (a claim based on scripture, divine revelation, etc.) against the evidence of the natural world.It is not the fault of science that those claims can't stand up to scrutiny.The "shifting the goalposts" you have been trying this whole thread is to plead that those debunked claims of supernatural events aren't really true claims, and that the supernatural is somewhere else and can't be tested.Nice work if you can get it. You should be a shaman of some kind trying to pull that kind of shabby bait and switch.

---

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

Indeed I don't. The experiment cannot tell us why the crops do better when we sacrifice to Mubu, only that this is what happens. Hence that while it could support the supernatural hypothesis, it wouldn't prove it. I think, for the reasons outlined we can agree this only supports the Turdung hypothesis, not proves it. But when we were discussing verification I do remember saying:

quote:

---

In the Mubu example - it might be possible to experiment more precisely with sacrificing to different beings. If the effect only happened when something was sacrificed to Mubu, then that would be fairly decent supportive verifying evidence

---

This, of course is a different experiment. Only one that we really need carry out if the results are positive. And since I was talking about falsification, not verification, it is still not relevant. I think you'll find upon re-examination the test remains unflawed.

---

abe: I think you might be getting confused about evidence here.The experiment gathers evidence so we can establish facts. With Mubu the fact transpires that sacrificing to Mubu does not increase crop yields. With Turdung the fact is that sacrificing to Turdung increases crop yields.The question is, what do these pieces of evidences mean for our theories?For the theory that predicts Mubu will increase crop yields if you sacrifice to him - we have a falsification since no crop yield increase occurs.For the theory that predicts Turdung will increase crop yields - we have gained evidence that supports the theory. An "ah - that's interesting" moment, if you will. If we want to increase our confidence we don't fall prey to confirmation bias, we try to falsify the theory with yet another falsification test. This time involving spreading muck without invoking a being, and spreading muck invoking a different being.When we encounter verification, we run more falsification tests. If a theory survives the initial barrage of obvious tests, it is (tentatively) a success. If it fails, it is (tentatively) a failure. So far, the supernatural, when tested, has fallen into the tentatively failed category. And no supernatural theory has worked its way out of that condition (without ad hoc modifications that render it unfalsifiable).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Who cares why they make the claim? A claim on the age of the Earth is not 'supernatural'. It doesn't matter who makes the claim; it doesn't matter what prompted them to make the claim; it doesn't matter how they classify the claim. A natural claim is a natural claim. It is time you put forth some respectable and reasonable criteria for 'supernatural' that doesn't rely on the opinions of others. Are you saying that any claim made against the evidence of the natural world is 'supernatural', and that a 'supernatural' claim is one made against the evidence of the natural world? And by 'against', do you mean, in opposition to/contrary to?If, however, you are saying that claims 'based on scripture, divine revelation, etc.' are 'supernatural' and 'supernatural' claims are those 'based on scripture, divine revelation, etc.', then I'll reiterate the point in my first paragraph: it does not matter one lick what the prompting behind the claim is; we judge its classification based on its own attributes, not the attributes of its foundation. You come across a claim in the woods; it is cute, just sitting there, but it is only a claim, nothing else. The claim is: "Leaves are from trees". Is this claim 'supernatural'? How do you know? What are your criteria?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

You have just tossed all claims of the supernatural out the window.Based on your post, they are all phony.Can't say I disagree with that.

---

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

My apologies if I've used these words inaccurately. I did not mean to imply at all that our hypotheses may be absolutely provable or unprovable. The word 'support' is probably an accurate way to read my use of the word 'prove'/'proof'.That said... No; we are talking about your test, and your test is crap. For example: Your test allows one to tack any supernatural blip one wants to prove support on to the end of a statement about the natural world. Your test allows folk to misuse the scientific method to draw any sort of conclusion they want, so long as they know how to set up their statement correctly enough to take advantage of the methodological loopholes it contains. Another example:If Jesus is the Son of God, the Sun rises.Sun rises, has risen many times, will rise many times. Ergo, Jesus is the Son of God.Oh wait... also, if Turdung is Mubu's sister, the Sun rises.Sun rises, has risen many times, will rise many times. Ergo, Turdung is Mubu's sister.There's more... or, actually, there's not, but the point is made. How does this falsify Turdung? None of these things exclude one another, so why can they not all be true? And what if they could exclude on another? Would this matter?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Jon,
I am confident you have lost at this stage. I strongly suggest you concede the point that you can test the supernatural, before going further down this road. You are reasoning backwards that since you believe I am wrong, there must be a flaw somewhere, and you are confidently attacking every which way and hoping something will stick. Just sit back and reason it through, I'm sure you'll see that I'm right. Really? Very strong words from someone who keeps misunderstanding the basics. My test doesn't allow anything. It's just a test.
Observation and reasoning should lead you to conclude that it is possible to tack any supernatural blip anywhere you want (just look around - as an example a supernatural blip is being proposed by significant numbers of people as an alternative (to science and engineering) explanation for the successful Chilean Mine rescue). That's not a failure of my methodology, it's another failure of the vague piece of crap that is the supernatural. That's not a misuse of the scientific method. You have merely misunderstood the experiment again.Firstly, what you have established (sort of) is that Modus Ponens can be valid but false.

quote:

---

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

---

So yeah - you can put anything you like in the antecedent (P) and then confirm it to 'prove' Q. If you think that you can use this to mislead, then I'd agree, but in this case that would be your fault for misusing logic - not mine for misusing science. Try again.Secondly, This is not related to what I was doing since I wasn't using Modus Ponens but Modus Tollens (denying the consequent rather than affirming the antecedent).Thirdly, the format of your situation is different in a key fashion. In my experiment I was testing the hypothesis that two natural events are causally related as a result of a supernatural intermediary. You have only one natural event.Fourthly, if we assume that Jesus is natural - you have failed to perform a control experiment in which you inhibit the actions of Jesus to see if the sun still rises. This is an example of why we need to avoid confirmation bias. Just the wrong point, at the wrong time, to the wrong person, in the wrong context. I was trying to save on typing because I thought you were capable of being sensible in this discussion. Sorry.The theory 'sacrificing to Turdung increases crop yields' has been confirmed. It is true, from our standards of measurement. As for what happens next - we've been over this.However, this doesn't help our full theory (remember in Mubu's case it was because of Mubu's intercession in driving spirits away). Since the test only weakly confirms the hypothesis we need to embolden the theory if we want to run further tests and get to grips with things.So, with Turdung, being curious and sensible, we might test things such as"Only sacrifices to Turdung result in good crop yield"
"Sacrificing to other beings won't result in good crop yield"
"If one wants better crops, sacrificing to Turdung is the exclusive method."{We do this if we want to have confidence that Turdung has some special or interesting detectable influence}If you want to suggest that we don't ever falsify the theory that"Turdung gives poo magical undetectable powers..."Then that's true, but I'm not interested in falsifying the unfalsifiable.It remains true that it is possible to test supernatural hypotheses, as I have described. Give it up Jon, it's a doomed position: It essentially requires that you demonstrate science can't test hypotheses.

---

Hypothesis: Spreading Mubu, the fertilizer gives better crops than not spreading Mubu, the fertilizer.If my test is crap - why not show me how it is done? Design a test for this natural hypothesis.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You seem determined to conflate the unfalsifiability of certain supernatural entities with the ability of science to refute to all practical intents and purposes the supernatural as the causal agent for an observed phenomenon. Scientifically test what?Scientifically test that they certainly do or do not exist? No.Scientifically test whether or not there is a natural rather than a supernatural cause for some observed phenomenon? Yes. We can test that. I refer you once again to Thor banging his hammer Vs static electricity as the cause of thunder.I suggest you read the OP again. It very much depends which of the above two questions you are asking. It very much depends which of the above two questions you are asking.

Probably too late in the thread to keep going but I'll respond to this and give you the last word. Perhaps, but the way I see it is, the individual god concepts do define what god is.At it's most basic, god is a supernatural entity that created the universe - and that extends to also overseeing the universe and playing an active role in it. <--- definition. They are examples of god/s that meet the requirements set forth by the original concept, yes. But they can also define what god is in the sense that, like the definition for god, they are meer concepts.What is the difference between:* God - a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality.* God - a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine.* God - a supernatural entity that pulls the Sun across the sky with his chariot or smashes his hammer to create thunder.* God - an ambiguous, undefined and undetectable entity who's abilities include, but are not limited to, creating universes.These are all concepts, aren't they? One doesn't defines what god is any more than the others do. You can pick any of those as the definition for god.They are all examples of god concepts, and they can all serve as the definition for god.- Oni

Then you are simply wrong.Consider the term life. What does life mean?Examples of life include everything from bacteria to oak trees. Via locusts, carrots, humans, cauliflowers, whales, algae, dinosaurs and a whole host of other things up to and including fictional alien and fantasy beings like Godzilla, hobbits, triffids and little green men from Mars. The dividing line between life and non-life is blurry. And the forms of life that might exist out there are vast and quite possibly unimaginable.By the terms of your argument the word life is meaningless because it is an umbrella term for a range of concepts that meet some rather broad conceptual criteria. It doesn’t mean one specific thing. We cannot point to a particular entity and say that is the definition of life. Just as is the case with the term god.Do you consider the term life to be meaningless as well? No. They are examples. Not definitions.

Suave muchacho... No, but the reason I don't is because "life" is a word used to describe the functioning characteristics of a system, like the word "sight." So you can point to a physical something and say, "See what all that does? That's life." --- God is not that. God IS what created the system, it is an actual "thing," an entity. It is a thing regardless of whether there is a system or not. This requires the word god to have a meaning and definition independent of the system, unlike "life."BUT, you can't point to a physical something and say, "See what all that does? That is a god." Instead you are forced to create the concept first (a supernatural entity that created the universe) then say, "See that concept I created? That is god."So it seems clear to me that the concepts define what god is, was and will be. The word doesn't have a meaning or definition independent of the concepts...muchacho.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It would appear that we have different understandings of what constitute 'supernatural', and so I believe we cannot come to an agreement while those differences persist. Whether an empirical test for the deistic Mubu-Turdung siblinghood exists or notand I am still not sure there is a reliable, meaningful one, but willing to admit for now it is possible that there is, as I certainly do not know all there is to know, I disagree with the notion of labeling a scientifically-failed Mubu as 'supernatural'. I draw this from the notion that if your test does test for them, then they are not supernatural; if your test cannot test for them, then they are supernatural. In either situation, we end up with an untestable 'supernatural'. This seems silly, and it might be, but it results from the definition of 'supernatural' I use; which creates this minor silliness, but avoids (what I feel) is a bigger quandary (mentioned below).As I hinted from the onset, I simply define 'supernatural' in a way that implies it to be something that is unfalsifiable through natural means, investigations of the natural world (Message 293). I figured this definition suitable, since I could see no way to clearly differentiate the supernatural from the natural under any other definition that would allow us to dismiss the former without question or scientific investigation, which was what the OP had suggested we do to the supernatural: "have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed as futile...?" (Message 1).I agree that we should dismiss the supernatural when doing science, but I could not conceive of a definition other than what I put forth that allows us to do so reliably and honestly. This definition, while allowing us to toss the supernatural into the pile of dismissibles, also made the supernatural, as far as I could tell, inherently untouchable by the arm of science, and so I found it reasonable to say the supernatural should be dismissed, but unreasonable to say it has failed by any scientific standard. I chose to define 'supernatural' as to allow me to dismiss it, but this disallows me failing it scientifically; I could choose a definition that does not allow me to dismiss it that would allow me to fail it scientifically. I guess here is where the personal choice comes to play. And my issue is not with which choice one makes; I take issue with those asserting that these positions can simultaneously both be non-contradictorily held. I am not sure there is a definition that allows us to honestly adhere to both.If there is, I'd like to see it. JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : -both +these

---

Check out the Purple Quill!