05 Dec '16 09:34>
In another thread, tw says ... it might be interesting to know what you actually mean by 'supernatural'.
So, what does the term mean for you?
So, what does the term mean for you?
Originally posted by apathistIt means effects that cannot happen in OUR universe. Like the speed of light all of a sudden, in space, = 1 mph.
In another thread, tw says ... it might be interesting to know what you actually mean by 'supernatural'.
So, what [b]does the term mean for you?[/b]
Originally posted by EladarSo if the supernatural happens, you will never see it? Or you can only ever see it once?
It means a power outside our universe having an effect on this universe that isn't natural. It means that something can happen that we can't make happen, ever seen happen or reproduce.
Originally posted by EladarIt is easy enough to conceive of something that fits that above definition but most of us would disagree should be called 'supernatural'. For example, something happening in another universe other than our own but obeying the same natural laws (esp the physical laws ) of our universe; we may not ever be able to observe it if it is in another universe but we wouldn't generally call that 'supernatural'.
... It means that something can happen that we can't make happen, ever seen happen or reproduce.
Originally posted by EladarSo some 'power outside our universe' would not be able to do something normal like play a game of chess, because I sure have seen that happen before and I can reproduce it.
It means a power outside our universe having an effect on this universe that isn't natural. It means that something can happen that we can't make happen, ever seen happen or reproduce.
Originally posted by twhiteheadCould be something never seen.
You said it would be something we have never seen happen. Are you withdrawing that part of your definition?
Originally posted by humyThe problem with your argument is that Science depends on a collection of assumptions about the world, which aren't particularly controversial, called methodological naturalism. This consists of a collection of beliefs, which are inductively justified but not proven, which amount to the future can be predicted from knowledge of the past and that nature is describable with theories. Nature is understood to mean everything physical and everything that supervenes on it. The strong version of this, ontological naturalism makes the additional claim that that is all that there is. I don't think that this position is beyond criticism.
It is easy enough to conceive of something that fits that above definition but most of us would disagree should be called 'supernatural'. For example, something happening in another universe other than our own but obeying the same natural laws (esp the physical laws ) of our universe; we may not ever be able to observe it if it is in another universe but we wou ...[text shortened]... ou would say there is no god or ghosts! ).
Who agrees xor disagrees with my above definition?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou are obviously touching on the problem of induction [PmOI] here, which is one of the things I am currently researching. Change-of-topic; I claim to be able to provide a real solution (not just a mere resolution) to PmOI but cannot prove this yet because it is currently 'incomplete' (it is currently a partial proof) but I will prove it when I make it 'complete' in about ~one years time (it is a massively complex mathematical proof) when I have my book published. I will show it mathematically, with mathematical proofs, in my book. I plan to even display the equation for its real solution on the front cover of the book although that is by far not the only thing my book will be about.
This consists of a collection of beliefs, which are inductively justified but not proven, which amount to the future can be predicted from knowledge of the past and that nature is describable with theories. .
Originally posted by EladarGood to know you don't buy the Bible story about it.
Turning water into wine is something that hasn't been seen.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPerhaps you would care to give a definition for supernatural such that a 'category error' occurs. Why would the scientific method not apply to the supernatural?
So, while you might argue that a belief in the supernatural is unscientific, we don't expect scientific method to apply to the supernatural anyway so there's a category error going on.