Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument against supernatural explanations

n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws.

What 'natural' is is by no means a settled issue.But I guess your definitoin works.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:17:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws.

What 'natural' is is by no means a settled issue.But I guess your definitoin works.

It's not an issue to settle, it's an issue just to define outright and work from there. Lest 'natural' becomes as meaningless as God has become.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 10:35:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Suppose the existence of angels, who do things that violate our current understanding of science. There are two explanations:

1. Our understanding of science is inaccurate. Our theories must be modified to account for the existence of angels.

2. Angels are truly supernatural: their powers cannot be explained by anything.

If the 2nd answer is correct, then the existence of angels would completely destroy the scientific method. Any experiment could have been tampered with by angels, and we could never control for that.

Since our world clearly operates on principles, I favour the 1st answer. Any "supernatural" phenomenon we encounter will have a naturalistic explanation, even if it's one we don't understand yet. Or, most likely, it will turn out to be a hoax.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 8:59:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that anything that has or will happen has a naturalistic origin - that is pretty much an 'article of faith' with me - it has to be, because I have no special knowledge of what will happen in the future... but I'm still prepared to bet it will be 'natural'.

But I don't necessarily agree with the idea that 'if it happens it must be natural' for even hypothetical events. There are some things that if they did happen one would have to concede they were 'supernatural' or 'miraculous', but they aren't the sort of thing anyone can reasonably think will happen. An example would be if suddenly all animals gained the power of speech and told us it was because god wanted to speak to us through them. (I'm sure there are better examples, but I can't be bothered to think of any more).

Fantasty aside, for any actual observation - for any actual event - the cause can only be natural becuase - well, because I don't believe in supernatural agents.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 2:51:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

The definition of supernatural is pretty clear. Beyound scientific understanding of the laws. Not beyound the laws themselves. So anything that happens that can't be explained by our science is in the real of what we are ignorant about.

This makes even established observations such as entanglement by definition supernatural.

To state that there is nothing 'supernatural' like God or ghosts is actually the fallacious argument from incredulity. And such an argument assumes we have a complete understanding of The Laws of Nature.

To make a case against 'super natural' would be to claim mankind is omniscient. Which is not true. 'True' defined as in accordance with REALITY
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 2:55:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.

There can be mathimatically representations of things that do not exist in nature. Secondly any mathimatical equation mankind comes up with is an abstract model of nature.

This line of thought is seriously backwards and illogical.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 3:00:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 8:59:04 AM, kp98 wrote:
I think that anything that has or will happen has a naturalistic origin - that is pretty much an 'article of faith' with me - it has to be, because I have no special knowledge of what will happen in the future... but I'm still prepared to bet it will be 'natural'.

But I don't necessarily agree with the idea that 'if it happens it must be natural' for even hypothetical events. There are some things that if they did happen one would have to concede they were 'supernatural' or 'miraculous', but they aren't the sort of thing anyone can reasonably think will happen. An example would be if suddenly all animals gained the power of speech and told us it was because god wanted to speak to us through them. (I'm sure there are better examples, but I can't be bothered to think of any more).

Fantasty aside, for any actual observation - for any actual event - the cause can only be natural becuase - well, because I don't believe in supernatural agents.

If God empowered all the animals to speak I bet the process would be a natural one and our understanding of the process would be to call it 'supernatural'

Read the definitions 'natural' and 'supernatural' are not dichotomies. 'Natural' refers to reality while 'supernatural' refers to mankinds ignorance.

Athiest illogical fallacious eqivocations. Fools have no understanding of God or Reality or Logic or Nature. Don't you know all understanding is rooted in testimony?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 5:40:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I think a better argument would be the following:
P1) In order to interact with the universe (natural world) you must have a fundamental force carrier (this is what modern particle physics says).
P2) That which is part of the natural world has a fundamental force carrier.
P3) Something outside of the natural world would not have a fundamental force carrier.
C1) Only something natural can interact with the natural world.
P4) Our senses can only pick up things within the natural world.
P5) Everything in the natural world is natural.
C2) Our senses cannot pick up anything supernatural.
C3) The only things we can observe are natural things.

The questionable part of the argument is P3 and is why I don't usually use it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 2:51:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

The definition of supernatural is pretty clear. Beyound scientific understanding of the laws. Not beyound the laws themselves. So anything that happens that can't be explained by our science is in the real of what we are ignorant about.

This makes even established observations such as entanglement by definition supernatural.

But the problem is science is incomplete. We don't know the full extent to what it explains or not.
To state that there is nothing 'supernatural' like God or ghosts is actually the fallacious argument from incredulity. And such an argument assumes we have a complete understanding of The Laws of Nature.

I'm not sure if it's an incredulity fallacy, but it would certainly be wrong. Which is why the argument is attacking supernatural explanations, not the actual existence of the supernatural. It would mean we wouldn't be able to use the supernatural as a good explanation, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're nonexistent.
To make a case against 'super natural' would be to claim mankind is omniscient. Which is not true. 'True' defined as in accordance with REALITY
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 5:46:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.

But our mathematical representations can be incomplete or perhaps even wrong in some way. That's the point of the dilemma.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 8:37:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 5:43:45 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 2:51:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

The definition of supernatural is pretty clear. Beyound scientific understanding of the laws. Not beyound the laws themselves. So anything that happens that can't be explained by our science is in the real of what we are ignorant about.

This makes even established observations such as entanglement by definition supernatural.

But the problem is science is incomplete. We don't know the full extent to what it explains or not.

No. We know what science explains. It's everything in the body of knowledge of science.

To state that there is nothing 'supernatural' like God or ghosts is actually the fallacious argument from incredulity. And such an argument assumes we have a complete understanding of The Laws of Nature.

I'm not sure if it's an incredulity fallacy, but it would certainly be wrong. Which is why the argument is attacking supernatural explanations, not the actual existence of the supernatural. It would mean we wouldn't be able to use the supernatural as a good explanation, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're nonexistent.

Becuase how your logic works is like this: oh look an event.
Can science explain that event? No.
So what other explaination is there? The supernatural
Is that explaination accepted by science? No.
Then I don't accept it.

Athiest genius right there.

To make a case against 'super natural' would be to claim mankind is omniscient. Which is not true. 'True' defined as in accordance with REALITY
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 9:02:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 8:37:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/27/2015 5:43:45 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 2:51:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

The definition of supernatural is pretty clear. Beyound scientific understanding of the laws. Not beyound the laws themselves. So anything that happens that can't be explained by our science is in the real of what we are ignorant about.

This makes even established observations such as entanglement by definition supernatural.

But the problem is science is incomplete. We don't know the full extent to what it explains or not.

No. We know what science explains. It's everything in the body of knowledge of science.

Science is incomplete and changes, furthermore, the definition also has to do with the laws of nature. Not just with the methodology of science. Also your claim of what science explains seems circular. Science explains what is in the knowledge of science, the knowledge of science is simply what it explains in the first place.
To state that there is nothing 'supernatural' like God or ghosts is actually the fallacious argument from incredulity. And such an argument assumes we have a complete understanding of The Laws of Nature.

I'm not sure if it's an incredulity fallacy, but it would certainly be wrong. Which is why the argument is attacking supernatural explanations, not the actual existence of the supernatural. It would mean we wouldn't be able to use the supernatural as a good explanation, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're nonexistent.

Becuase how your logic works is like this: oh look an event.
Can science explain that event? No.
So what other explaination is there? The supernatural
Is that explaination accepted by science? No.
Then I don't accept it.

Athiest genius right there.

That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. The entire idea disagrees with a positive or negative assessment of the very first premise. Can science explain that event? We don't know because we don't know everything about reality. Therefore, we can't state X is supernatural event. You've misunderstood the entire argument.
To make a case against 'super natural' would be to claim mankind is omniscient. Which is not true. 'True' defined as in accordance with REALITY
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 9:57:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 5:40:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I think a better argument would be the following:
P1) In order to interact with the universe (natural world) you must have a fundamental force carrier (this is what modern particle physics says).
P2) That which is part of the natural world has a fundamental force carrier.
P3) Something outside of the natural world would not have a fundamental force carrier.
You can't prove this, pure assumption
C1) Only something natural can interact with the natural world.
Prove it
P4) Our senses can only pick up things within the natural world.
Prove it
P5) Everything in the natural world is natural.
Circular reasoning
C2) Our senses cannot pick up anything supernatural.
Prove it
C3) The only things we can observe are natural things.
Prove it

The questionable part of the argument is P3 and is why I don't usually use it.

No , the questionable part of the argument is it is nothing but argumentum ad nauseam, its circular reasoning based on yours or others you know experiences, not everyone's as you seem saying "we" will suffice. It doesn't. It merely shows you have either chosen a biased sample or you're claiming authority over the intelligence of others who don't fall into your constant circular claims as to what "we" have experienced. We are more than YOU have ever encountered. It isn't an argument.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:07:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 9:57:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/27/2015 5:40:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I think a better argument would be the following:
P1) In order to interact with the universe (natural world) you must have a fundamental force carrier (this is what modern particle physics says).
P2) That which is part of the natural world has a fundamental force carrier.
P3) Something outside of the natural world would not have a fundamental force carrier.
You can't prove this, pure assumption

As I said, this is the shakiest premise.
When I do use this it is when people claim that something that is supernatural is nonphysical. As a fundamental force carrier is a particle then it is physical, and thus the nonphysical cannot have them.

The problem that this argument holds is that one can propose something to be supernatural yet have physical properties.

C1) Only something natural can interact with the natural world.
Prove it

This follows from P1-P3.
If P1, P2, and P3 are all true, then this is also true.

P4) Our senses can only pick up things within the natural world.
Prove it

Sight works by light bouncing off of objects and into our eyes. Light is an electromagnetic force and bounces off of PHYSICAL things. Therefore we can only see physical things.
Our sense of touch works when the electromagnetic force (something physical) of two objects pushes off of each other, ultimately causing our nerves to send a signal to our brain that there is something there. This means we can only feel physical things.
I can do this with every sense we have.

This premise works off the same assumption as premise 3, that supernatural things are not physical things.

P5) Everything in the natural world is natural.
Circular reasoning

More like a tautology.

C2) Our senses cannot pick up anything supernatural.
Prove it

Follows from P4 and P5.

C3) The only things we can observe are natural things.
Prove it

Follows from C1 and C2.

The questionable part of the argument is P3 and is why I don't usually use it.

No , the questionable part of the argument is it is nothing but argumentum ad nauseam,

How so?

its circular reasoning based on yours or others you know experiences, not everyone's as you seem saying "we" will suffice.

How is it circular reasoning? It works off the 2 assumptions that science is to be trusted (for P1 and P4) and that the supernatural is not physical. You can question the assumptions, but that doesn't make it circular.

It doesn't. It merely shows you have either chosen a biased sample or you're claiming authority over the intelligence of others who don't fall into your constant circular claims as to what "we" have experienced. We are more than YOU have ever encountered. It isn't an argument.

I'm sorry, but you are making an argument ad anecdote and arguing from what you FEEL your experience was. There are many examples in history of people thinking they felt one thing and it turning out to be something else.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:10:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 9:02:05 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 8:37:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/27/2015 5:43:45 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 2:51:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

The definition of supernatural is pretty clear. Beyound scientific understanding of the laws. Not beyound the laws themselves. So anything that happens that can't be explained by our science is in the real of what we are ignorant about.

This makes even established observations such as entanglement by definition supernatural.

But the problem is science is incomplete. We don't know the full extent to what it explains or not.

No. We know what science explains. It's everything in the body of knowledge of science.

Science is incomplete and changes, furthermore, the definition also has to do with the laws of nature. Not just with the methodology of science. Also your claim of what science explains seems circular. Science explains what is in the knowledge of science, the knowledge of science is simply what it explains in the first place.

Science isn't reality. It is a methodology of acquiring knowledge. It is an inductive method (specific scenarios to general concepts) used to explain phenomena in terms of previously accepted explanations from earlier phenomena, to create models (abstract generalizations) of Natural events.

The fact that Science is incomplete is what "supernatural" is based on. As I said earlier "natural" and "supernatural" is not a dichotomy. They are not 2 sides of a spectrum or 2 categories of events.

That's a common misconception because "supernatural" has the word "natural" in it.

"natural" is what is real and exists un-caused by humans. Where "supernatural" is a about the ignorance of Science. An ignorance you admit exists.

So there are supernatural events. Here I'll give you a few, quantum entanglement, quantum gravity, rise in food allergies, naga fireballs, Architecture created by humans in the past even as recent as 1400's, bird navigation during migration, swarming behavior, ect...

And the THEORIES science has to explain many things are still refined and sometimes thrown out.

So any argument against the "supernatural" in general is fallacious filled argument. It is an Argument from incredulity. "I can't scientifically explain this event, Supernatural explanation is what science can't explain. But I refuse to accept the supernatural because science can't explain it."

Scietism, epericism, the elevation of a investigative technique to the paradigm of logic, has been defeated and demonstrated to be an illogical endeavor.

To state that there is nothing 'supernatural' like God or ghosts is actually the fallacious argument from incredulity. And such an argument assumes we have a complete understanding of The Laws of Nature.

I'm not sure if it's an incredulity fallacy, but it would certainly be wrong. Which is why the argument is attacking supernatural explanations, not the actual existence of the supernatural. It would mean we wouldn't be able to use the supernatural as a good explanation, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're nonexistent.

Becuase how your logic works is like this: oh look an event.
Can science explain that event? No.
So what other explaination is there? The supernatural
Is that explaination accepted by science? No.
Then I don't accept it.

Athiest genius right there.

That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. The entire idea disagrees with a positive or negative assessment of the very first premise. Can science explain that event? We don't know because we don't know everything about reality. Therefore, we can't state X is supernatural event. You've misunderstood the entire argument.

Maybe you should look at the very definition of "supernatural" you provided. If it is not explained by science, that by definition makes it a supernatural event.

So when Atheist don't like the conclusion of an argument using English words, just redefine the words. Brilliant sophistry.

To make a case against 'super natural' would be to claim mankind is omniscient. Which is not true. 'True' defined as in accordance with REALITY
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 4:03:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 9:57:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/27/2015 5:40:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I think a better argument would be the following:
P1) In order to interact with the universe (natural world) you must have a fundamental force carrier (this is what modern particle physics says).
P2) That which is part of the natural world has a fundamental force carrier.
P3) Something outside of the natural world would not have a fundamental force carrier.
You can't prove this, pure assumption

As I said, this is the shakiest premise.
When I do use this it is when people claim that something that is supernatural is nonphysical. As a fundamental force carrier is a particle then it is physical, and thus the nonphysical cannot have them.

The problem that this argument holds is that one can propose something to be supernatural yet have physical properties.

C1) Only something natural can interact with the natural world.
Prove it

This follows from P1-P3.
If P1, P2, and P3 are all true, then this is also true.
How do you know?
P4) Our senses can only pick up things within the natural world.
Prove it

Sight works by light bouncing off of objects and into our eyes. Light is an electromagnetic force and bounces off of PHYSICAL things. Therefore we can only see physical things.

Our sense of touch works when the electromagnetic force (something physical) of two objects pushes off of each other, ultimately causing our nerves to send a signal to our brain that there is something there. This means we can only feel physical things.
I can do this with every sense we have.

This premise works off the same assumption as premise 3, that supernatural things are not physical things.

P5) Everything in the natural world is natural.
Circular reasoning

More like a tautology.
Yes saying something redundant isn't circular, I stand corrected,
C2) Our senses cannot pick up anything supernatural.
Prove it

Follows from P4 and P5.

C3) The only things we can observe are natural things.
Prove it

Follows from C1 and C2.

The questionable part of the argument is P3 and is why I don't usually use it.

No , the questionable part of the argument is it is nothing but argumentum ad nauseam,

How so?

its circular reasoning based on yours or others you know experiences, not everyone's as you seem saying "we" will suffice.

How is it circular reasoning? It works off the 2 assumptions that science is to be trusted (for P1 and P4) and that the supernatural is not physical. You can question the assumptions, but that doesn't make it circular.
Sipernatural means beyond natural, it doesn't mean incapable of appearing in natural form to show a supernatural occurrence.
It doesn't. It merely shows you have either chosen a biased sample or you're claiming authority over the intelligence of others who don't fall into your constant circular claims as to what "we" have experienced. We are more than YOU have ever encountered. It isn't an argument.

I'm sorry, but you are making an argument ad anecdote and arguing from what you FEEL your experience was. There are many examples in history of people thinking they felt one thing and it turning out to be something else.
You have no idea from what I'm arguing but thanks for thinking and claiming you're all knowing.
Maybe you should just say the following.
There is no such thing as supernatural in the natural world because only natural things can be natural.
Of course, that assumes that supernatural doesn't include natural ability. Which you cant prove. Its actually more logical to assume natural things can not be supernatural, but supernatural would hold that since it is beyond natural in capability that it also has within it natural abilities. Something can not be greater than its nature, but something can, within the subset of what it is, become that which entails less than its nature. You're merely coming from a point that you know that no one is capable of doing or experiencing something you haven't. Therefore arguing from ego. You want to be included in the delusion that all people are equal. They're not.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 5:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 9:57:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/27/2015 5:40:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I think a better argument would be the following:
P1) In order to interact with the universe (natural world) you must have a fundamental force carrier (this is what modern particle physics says).
P2) That which is part of the natural world has a fundamental force carrier.
P3) Something outside of the natural world would not have a fundamental force carrier.
You can't prove this, pure assumption

As I said, this is the shakiest premise.
When I do use this it is when people claim that something that is supernatural is nonphysical. As a fundamental force carrier is a particle then it is physical, and thus the nonphysical cannot have them.

The problem that this argument holds is that one can propose something to be supernatural yet have physical properties.

C1) Only something natural can interact with the natural world.
Prove it

This follows from P1-P3.
If P1, P2, and P3 are all true, then this is also true.

P4) Our senses can only pick up things within the natural world.
Prove it

Sight works by light bouncing off of objects and into our eyes. Light is an electromagnetic force and bounces off of PHYSICAL things. Therefore we can only see physical things.
Our sense of touch works when the electromagnetic force (something physical) of two objects pushes off of each other, ultimately causing our nerves to send a signal to our brain that there is something there. This means we can only feel physical things.
I can do this with every sense we have.

This premise works off the same assumption as premise 3, that supernatural things are not physical things.

P5) Everything in the natural world is natural.
Circular reasoning

More like a tautology.
And ill need proof if you're using tautology as a universal truth. So please, show me evidence of "everything", that's is you can find it. Then , we will start off easy, I'll need ten million written statements by people who agree with you that everything in the natural world is only "natural".
Universal means all people agree with you. When we get close to 4 billion, all on your side, maybe I will consider this as something other than you talking in circles without a shred of supporting evidence, agreements among all people, and whatever else you can think of with these all inclusive claims of yours.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:21:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good luck defining "natural" in the first place. I don't really care how it's defined - if God (for example) turns out "natural" on some definitions, oh well
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 5:14:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 5:46:21 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.

But our mathematical representations can be incomplete or perhaps even wrong in some way. That's the point of the dilemma.

I said -a- mathematical representation, i.e. in principle, not how as have them in practice now.

At some level. If it doesn't follow such given the incomplete enature of the laws of physics, then it is not nagtural. It could turn out that nothing is natural by this definition and that everything we observe as a mathematical relationship is just a close approximation.

I really don't see the prob;en you are tyring to posit here, I am being very explicit in what I am defining as natural here, I literally do not know of a more objective definition than I have given.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 5:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 2:55:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.

There can be mathimatically representations of things that do not exist in nature.

That sense is incoherent if you are being consistent with my deifnition of natural. 'Exist in nature' is incredibly meaningless outside of what I have put forward.

Secondly any mathimatical equation mankind comes up with is an abstract model of nature.

I guess so. It would then be natural by this definition.

This line of thought is seriously backwards and illogical.

Demonstrate that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:50:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 5:17:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/27/2015 2:55:11 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:41:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:16:18 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation.

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws. Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.
That would still seem to be problematic. If natural laws refer to current natural laws, then we aren't justified in accepting a supernatural explanation because physics is incomplete (we would also seem to have to claim the orbit of Mercury was supernatural if we lived in Newtonian times). If they are defined in relation to future or ideal natural laws, then we are still not justified in it because we cannot know what those laws will be.

Well a natural law is somethign which can be algorithmally represented as a mathematical equation. E.g. the law of relativity is a specific mathematical relationship of space and time. Newton's law of motion is a specific mathematical relationship of momentum and acceleration.

Regardless of whether or not the world or an object adheres to the natural laws as we think they are now, if it is natural then it fundementally at some levels obeys a specific mathematical law. E.g. Newton's law of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity, which itself is a specific mathematical relationship.

Anything which cannot be described as such is by that definition, 'not natural'. That is a very easy criteria to exist outside in imaginaation - in my opinion.

There can be mathimatically representations of things that do not exist in nature.

That sense is incoherent if you are being consistent with my deifnition of natural. 'Exist in nature' is incredibly meaningless outside of what I have put forward.

Secondly any mathimatical equation mankind comes up with is an abstract model of nature.

I guess so. It would then be natural by this definition.

This line of thought is seriously backwards and illogical.

Demonstrate that.

Why don't you support your assertion that 'natural' is what can be represented mathematically.

How do you even reason that what exists in reality is what can be modeled by abstract entities (numbers)?

Sounds like saying music is what can be viewed as dots on five lines. Or does that sound 'logical' to you as well?
8to5
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 6:03:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation. : :

Only the creator of science and nature has any authority. Science can't tell you where science came from and neither can nature but the creator can tell you exactly how he spoke these things into existence.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 7:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In order for something to be called scientific, a number of conditions have to be met. For one thing, scientific findings have to be independently replicable. Thus, when outcomes differ even under the same material conditions, a supernatural (non-scientific) explanation may be implied. Of course, the hard part is ruling out hidden material variables. There's probably no way to rule them out absolutely, but that doesn't mean belief in supernatural explanations is always unwarranted. Just as scientific belief is tentative, limited to the available evidence, so too is belief in supernatural phenomena. When there's no obvious material explanation for something we observe, there's no reason to remain committed to the notion that some material cause lays behind it.

I think a very strong case can be made that any purely materialistic explanation for the universe is a priori false, insofar as a material universe would be incapable of forming for itself a self-contained (teleological) raison d'etre, thus lacking self-containment. To the extent that this is true, and to the extent that self-containment is a necessary requirement of the universe, we may have to give up on trying to explain all observable phenomena in terms of other observable phenomena, and simply accept that some features of the universe are not reducible to material processes alone, but rather are expressions of a non-deterministic force guiding the evolution of the universe.
edgar_winters
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:16:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:01:48 PM, n7 wrote:
What does everyone think of this argument against supernatural explanations of any kind (whether it be God, ghosts, ect)?

The very definition of supernatural is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

This means in order to have a justified supernatural explanation, we must first rule it out as being under the authority of science and the laws of nature. However, there is much we don't understand about the laws of nature and science. Even if science was complete, there is still the problems of our fallibility in such cases. To claim X is supernatural is to claim we know everything about the laws of nature and science to make such a claim. Since we don't and some argue that such a thing is impossible, we have no justified reason for accepting any supernatural explanation. : :

Have you ever considered that scientific discoveries may be supernatural, also?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 11:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:08:19 PM, Envisage wrote:

I would immediately disagree with your definition of 'supernatural'.

What is 'natural' philosophically is very explicitly defined as something that obeys physical laws. Thus anything that does not obey physical laws is by definition 'not natural', and therefore by that definition 'supernatural'.

- This falls into the issue of ordinary vs. extraordinary state of affairs, whether physical laws can be deduced only from ordinary state of affairs, & whether they are only applicable to ordinary state of affairs. Then again, where is the boundary between ordinary & extraordinary state of affairs? Is there any to begin with?!

Therefore, you would only need to know that something does not in principle obey natural laws.

- This might be applicable in some cases, but it can't be generalised.

Which doesn't require an 'impossibility of the contrary', or negative proof argument to demonstrate, although in practice I imagine it would be difficult to show that.

- I agree, unless for some obvious cases.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 4:27:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 7:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In order for something to be called scientific, a number of conditions have to be met. For one thing, scientific findings have to be independently replicable. Thus, when outcomes differ even under the same material conditions, a supernatural (non-scientific) explanation may be implied. Of course, the hard part is ruling out hidden material variables. There's probably no way to rule them out absolutely, but that doesn't mean belief in supernatural explanations is always unwarranted. Just as scientific belief is tentative, limited to the available evidence, so too is belief in supernatural phenomena. When there's no obvious material explanation for something we observe, there's no reason to remain committed to the notion that some material cause lays behind it.

I think a very strong case can be made that any purely materialistic explanation for the universe is a priori false, insofar as a material universe would be incapable of forming for itself a self-contained (teleological) raison d'etre, thus lacking self-containment. To the extent that this is true, and to the extent that self-containment is a necessary requirement of the universe, we may have to give up on trying to explain all observable phenomena in terms of other observable phenomena, and simply accept that some features of the universe are not reducible to material processes alone, but rather are expressions of a non-deterministic force guiding the evolution of the universe.

Why, exactly, are you equating "materialism" with "determinism"?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz