1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    06 Dec '16 17:57
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Good to know you don't buy the Bible story about it.

    [b]Miraculous healing some say they have seen multiple times so it could be things seen.

    So the whole seen or not seen thing was nonsense?

    What about the repeatable thing. Why can entities outside the universe not make wine out of grape juice? What is stopping them?[/b]
    Have you seen it? No one alive has seen it. I of course am talking about anyone alive.

    As for your other questions, now you are dabbling into trying to question implications. I am not interested in playing your games, but trying to clarify.

    I thought Deep Thought did a great job of saying what I've been trying to say. Read what he wrote.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Dec '16 18:12
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Have you seen it? No one alive has seen it.
    How do you know?

    I of course am talking about anyone alive.
    It was not obvious from anything you said.

    As for your other questions, now you are dabbling into trying to question implications.
    I am trying to get clarity on your definition.

    I am not interested in playing your games, but trying to clarify.
    They are not games. You gave a rather odd definition and I am questioning aspects of it. You have already completely changed half of it.

    I thought Deep Thought did a great job of saying what I've been trying to say. Read what he wrote.
    Will do.
  3. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    06 Dec '16 18:51
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Perhaps 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?
    Experiments and observations are of necessity of nature. The scope of Science is what one can do experiments on. Science can't reasonably claim to be able to investigate things outside of nature. All science can do is point out that no one has ever produced a repeatable observation. What might be possible in the future is the construction of a theory of mind based on supervenience naturalism which is technological in the sense that we could produce artificial minds by using the theory. The difficulty is that although the claim would be that the theory is complete a die hard dualist could reasonably claim that the artificial minds are philosophical zombies and only natural minds have the necessary dualist component to make a real mind which has free will, or whatever the magic ingredient is that real minds have and philosophical zombies do not.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    06 Dec '16 21:176 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    ...Science can't reasonably claim to be able to investigate things outside of nature....
    When people claim something supernatural, they often claim it is something that interacts with nature i.e. the world we observe around us. For example, a claim that ghosts make strange noises in a 'haunted' house. That claim can be investigated by science. We can investigate the source of sound (if any) and see it it has a non--supernatural explanation with high probability given the evidence uncovered by the investigation (or, alternatively but unlikely, discover good evidence of something breaking natural law thus indicating there really may be something 'supernatural'. But, as far as I am aware, that has never happened before).

    As for claims of supernatural things that never interact with the world we observe, they can be readily dismissed as being baseless precisely because they are totally outside anything we can observe and thus verify. But we can also dismiss such claims to be 'unscientific' and against scientific method.
    We can also dismiss any belief in unobservable and thus unverifiable supernatural things as irrational belief.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    06 Dec '16 21:37
    Originally posted by humy
    When people claim something supernatural, they often claim it is something that interacts with nature i.e. the world we observe around us. For example, a claim that ghosts make strange noises in a hunted house. That claim can be investigated by science. We can investigate the source of sound (if any) and see it it has a non--supernatural explanation with high p ...[text shortened]... smiss any belief in unobservable and thus unverifiable supernatural things as irrational belief.
    Well, while I agree that you can do all these things a skeptic can simply ask you to prove your claim. When you mention interaction with the physical world the skeptic could point out that a dualist might argue that interaction with the supernatural happens at the level of mind and so unexplained sounds turning out to have naturalistic explanations are irrelevant to sensible claims about the possibility of the supernatural.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    06 Dec '16 23:111 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Well, while I agree that you can do all these things a skeptic can simply ask you to prove your claim. When you mention interaction with the physical world the skeptic could point out that a dualist might argue that interaction with the supernatural happens at the level of mind and so unexplained sounds turning out to have naturalistic explanations are irrelevant to sensible claims about the possibility of the supernatural.
    Not sure if I understand. Can you give a hypothetical example of what a dualist might argue is a sensible claim about the possibility of the supernatural.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Dec '16 07:04
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Experiments and observations are of necessity of nature.
    Why?

    The scope of Science is what one can do experiments on.
    No, not true. The scope of science is absolutely everything.

    Science can't reasonably claim to be able to investigate things outside of nature.
    Of course it can. Science can reasonably claim to investigate anything that is observable. If it not observable, then we can know nothing about it.
  8. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    07 Dec '16 09:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead...
    The scope of Science is what one can do experiments on.
    No, not true. The scope of science is absolutely everything.
    ...
    Strong scientism! oh my

    tw, you are asked to explain what the term 'supernatural' means for you. Time to step up to the plate.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Dec '16 14:251 edit
    Originally posted by apathist
    Strong scientism! oh my.
    Not scientism at all. Just a basic understanding of what science is. Hint: its not a religion.

    tw, you are asked to explain what the term 'supernatural' means for you. Time to step up to the plate.
    The only reasonable definition I can come up with is something that is not of this universe.
    Of course any supernatural entity acting in this universe would result in events in this universe that could be studied through science. Whether we call those events 'natural' or 'supernatural' would be a tricky question. At best we call call them 'caused but the supernatural'.
    Generally I see no real benefit to making a distinction at all and would find difficulty in trying to define what is 'in the universe' and what is not in the universe.
    In my experience, people who use the term 'supernatural' actually use it in an attempt to talk absolute nonsense while hiding it under terminology. So basically the same as most religious terms.
    'Its supernatural' usually means 'I made it up so don't tell me I'm wrong!'. Or 'it follows whatever rules I make up whether they make any sense or not!'
    And so on.

    I find it interesting how many people buy into the claim that some events are not within the domain of science. Science is a study of information. Any information. Either the supernatural follows certain patterns or it is totally random. Either way, it can be studied through science. The only things that cannot be studied through science are those for which we have insufficient information about, and even then, science can tell you that you have insufficient information and must claim ignorance.

    We cannot, at this stage, study flying toasters on the far side of Jupiter. But we must equally accept that they most likely do not exist, and even if they did, we know nothing about them. It would be in error to say we know something about them but they cannot be studied through science.
  10. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    07 Dec '16 17:114 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not scientism at all. Just a basic understanding of what science is. Hint: its not a religion.

    [b]tw, you are asked to explain what the term 'supernatural' means for you. Time to step up to the plate.

    The only reasonable definition I can come up with is something that is not of this universe.
    Of course any supernatural entity acting in this unive ...[text shortened]... ould be in error to say we know something about them but they cannot be studied through science.[/b]
    Do you believe that macro-evolution as the explanation of all life on this planet is true?
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    07 Dec '16 18:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why?

    [b]The scope of Science is what one can do experiments on.

    No, not true. The scope of science is absolutely everything.

    Science can't reasonably claim to be able to investigate things outside of nature.
    Of course it can. Science can reasonably claim to investigate anything that is observable. If it not observable, then we can know nothing about it.[/b]
    Nature, in other words particles, fields, and the various effects that supervene on them, is the subject and scope of science. By insisting that Science has universal scope you have insisted that there is nothing outside of nature, so no supernature. Your position is one of ontological naturalism. There's nothing wrong with that particularly, you just have to realize that there's nothing intrinsically irrational about taking a position of dualism, or even some sort of idealist position such as Berkeley's where all that really exists is mind.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    07 Dec '16 18:21
    Originally posted by humy
    Not sure if I understand. Can you give a hypothetical example of what a dualist might argue is a sensible claim about the possibility of the supernatural.
    It was probably confusing, there's a tension between specifying everything and not producing ten paragraph essays...

    If the interaction happens at the level of mind then there is nothing for scientists to measure but brainwaves. They are going to have a hard time proving that there is no supernatural intervention just by examining the electrical activity in the brain. As an example, I've heard Christians say words to the effect that God talks to them. Assuming that they are not speaking figuratively, then it's consistent with the idea of a supernatural world of minds.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    08 Dec '16 08:251 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    .... there's nothing intrinsically irrational about taking a position of dualism, or even some sort of idealist position such as Berkeley's where all that really exists is mind.
    I am not sure but I think I finally getting what you are getting at;
    Are you saying there are certain purely metaphysical interpretations of observations that scientific method cannot conclude any definable probability (whether high probability or low probability) of any of those interpretations being true thus they are outside the scope of science?
    If so, then we are in agreement on that.
    But I don't see how my definition of supernatural contradicts or is at odds with that because my definition doesn't imply all such purely metaphysical interpretations of observations must necessarily disobey apparent natural law and my definition would only call those such interpretation as being 'supernatural' as those that do disobey apparent natural law, such a boulder magically floating through a solid brick wall without leaving a hole in it etc.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Dec '16 09:16
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Do you believe that macro-evolution as the explanation of all life on this planet is true?
    I believe it is the best explanation for what we observe.
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    08 Dec '16 09:173 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    ...
    ...
    I thought Deep Thought did a great job of saying what I've been trying to say.
    Actually, what he said implicitly contradicts certain aspects of what you said and he is clearly not in general agreement with you. You simply don't understand what he said but decided that he is in total agreement with you anyway.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree