I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

No, once again you simply misrepresent what I have said.I said I see no test of the supernatural in your example.

I think that is an interesting point.I think it depends on whether one sees science as a naturalistic philosophy (methodological naturalism) or a method (the hypothetico-deductive method).I guess my point is that it is in principle possible to acquire objective empirical evidence of the supernatural using the hypothetico-deductive method. That's what I have described doing. That's why I disagree with those who confidently assert that supernatural explanations can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced. They can. They just aren't.When I say that if there were objective empirical evidence of the supernatural then I would seriously question, and even potentially change, my atheistic stance - I mean it. It isn't just some bullshit debating stance because in practise there is no evidence I would ever accept (a la jar).

The hypothesis in question has been tested.Because it is hypotheses that we test. Not "the natural" or the "supernatural".You relentlessly declaring that we must test "the supernatural" is no different to Einsten being asked to test "the natural" when hypothesising that gravity is the result of spacetime curvature.Your ignorance of the hypothetico-deductive method continues.

I don't know if anybody is saying that. What I hear is that there may be some things that can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced and we call those things "supernatural". It's a term for what's outside the room. It's the paper that the Venn diagram is drawn on. You can't know that.

Not so.Did you say "The above would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question obtained by the application of the hypothetico-deductive method."?

I see the method as one part of what is referred to as "science". As I said before, if it has objective empirical evidence and we can make predictions of it, then it is what we would label as natural. There's nothing super about it. So either they don't exist, or science can't know them. That's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist. I've had experiences that made me think that there's other stuff going on here that falls outside of what science knows.

Ask jar how a supernatural hypothesis can be evdenced. Show me what I can know.A major source of confrontation here seems to be then massive difference in what people "know". Look at CS's posts for that.

It is impossible to equivocate when I'm supplying the definitions and sticking to them. It should be clear to everyone who replies to me that I'm using the definitions that I post and say that I'm using.How many times would you like me to admit that if we use a definition of "natural" that reduces to "occurs in the universe" then, obviously, something that is supernatural cannot occur in the universe... otherwise, it would be natural?(That counts as one more... I think I'm up to 8 times now...)Of course if we don't adjust that definition, then there's nothing to talk about. I suppose we can all say "yay for tautologies!"
If, however, we do want to show a distinction that can be made between supernatural and natural... then the definition I've provided do exactly that.Decide what you're looking for, then attempt to make comments within the right context. It's less confusing for everyone. It most certainly is, when I clearly lay out that this is exactly what I'm doing and why...
To claim otherwise is simply immature.

It seems to me that we're talking about questions like the following:Can the supernatural be tested?
Is it possible to know if the supernatural exists?
Can science study the supernatural?All of these questions have one thing in common. They imply (possibly only hypothetically) that the supernatural is something that has the possibility to occur in the universe.There is a definition of "natural" that can be reduced to "occurs in the universe."
When using this definition, the obvious answer to all the above supernatural questions is "No" simply by definition. No thought required.Anyone attempting to discuss these supernatural questions in any way and insisting on using this "occurs in the universe" definition of "natural" in a natural vs. supernatural sense is being ignorant at best and trolling at worst.The fact that the very nature of these questions imply that the supernatural may be something that occurs should be the hint (to the honest and reasonable participant) that there must be some context of "natural" being used that simply does not rule out any discussion of the supernatural by definition. Obviously, if such a definition of "natural" was used... then there's no point in even asking the questions in the first place.The only definition of the world "natural" that makes sense when asking these sorts of questions is the one I've provided:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention (or intervention from any other "intelligent being). Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  

If you do not agree... why do you possibly think any definition of natural reducing to "occurs in the universe" should be used in the discussion other than the fact that it rules out the supernatural simply by definition? What other information does this definition bring to the discussion? Why would think that ruling something out "by definition" should be considered an intelligent response in this case?The answer of "it's popular" or "it's normal" doesn't count. That just means you're being ignorant.
The use of the word "natural" in the sense that it's non-man-made is just as popular and normal. Probably even more so.

If someone started a thread asking if water could be dry, then I would stick to saying that it is a stupid question rather than trying to redefine the word "dry" so that the question could be explored. But that's just me.If someone like you comes along and provides their definitions, then sure, I'll talk to you about it. But in the back of my mind I'm still thinking, water isn't dry by definition, this is kinda silly.

Big. The one is under the normal bell curve but waaay out there at the pointy end of the right hand tail. The other doesn't exist. Great! When can we get started?The point is that these hypotheticals never exist so there is no point in addressing them.Edited by AZPaul3, : corrections

And, of course, that is the only definition applicable when discussing the philosophy of science.

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Nature:

​

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth". Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις ), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage was confirmed during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

---

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Science:

​

The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.

---

There is only one sense for the word "nature" in a discussion of science, and that is the sense that everyone in this thread (aside from yourself) has been using.Your introduction of the lay sense of the term is an equivocation:Yet entirely misses the mark in a discussion on the philosophy of science.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

If either actually existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nevertheless, since when was a miracle not supernatural? As the supernatural doesn't exist, the ONLY way they can be discussed is hypothetically.I find the reluctance to accept - by both believers and skeptics - an obvious supernatural/miraculous event, strange, to say the least.What are both sides of the argument frightened of here?

Since semantics made supernatural a null subset of miracle.On a slick icy road I skid. The variable uncertainty of physics came together at that precise moment in such a fashion I slid right around, like 270^o, the bridge abutment with not even a scratch on my driver's side door (from where I had watched in fascinated slow motion).Given that a fraction of a second or a fraction of a millimeter difference in any of the thousands of data points involved (all possibilities under the curve) would have meant a banged up car or a dead yours truly, that is miracle enough for me. I don't, since there hasn't been one. I cannot speak for the believer, nor for any skeptic but myself, but the big problem is the penchant for humans to jump to a "supernatural" conclusion in the face of the unknown and the woo-woo anti-science, illogical, irrational tripe that comes with it. If the word could be whipped back into the cage of its classical meaning, and Stile is trying hard, that would be different. But he hasn't and it isn't.

No one is afraid of anything. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish the "supernatural" from the "natural" when "supernatural" means something that goes against our current understanding of the way the universe works; and when "supernatural" means wholly and entirely outside of nature and the empirical universe it is untestable by science.It's just that simple.