Clouseau

Yes. So if we make the categoric statement that the supernatural cannot exist, we must get convincing evidence in support.

No Robots

No, Nature:

Spinoza claimed to demonstrate both the necessary existence and the unitary nature of the unique, single substance that comprises all of reality. Spinoza preferred the designation "Deus sive Natura" ("god or nature") as the most fitting name for this being, and he argued that its infinite attributes account for every feature of the universe.--from here.

Hex

Okaaaay ...

Howsabout a lack of documented miracles, then?

If they were 'proof' of Yahweh and Jesus's supernatural power in the Torah and Bible, I posit the -lack- of miracles as proof of no supernatural in a Judeo-Christian bent.

If you want something slightly more on the 'everyday' of the supernatural, why has James Randi's challenge gone unclaimed? Again, I posit the dearth of evidence as an indicator of the lack of supernatural powers/abilities.


Note, this is a rational approach. If no evidence is forthcoming, then why should I assume that it's out there and base any sort of reasoning on a speculation?

Amaleq13

Only the last four have been in AK. The previous years were spent in the suburbs of Chicago.

Yes and neither is the proposition that the supernatural should be taken seriously as an explanation absent credible evidence.

VoxRat

You really do miss the point, don't you? I suspect you must be doing that intentionally, but - giving you the benefit of the doubt here - I'll have a go at clearing things up for you.

First, there is no "argument from ridicule" here. Not from me. Not from Russell. You have been very free with the insults, but you'll notice that I have not reciprocated. It's not an "argument from ridicule"; it would be more aptly described as reductio ad absurdum. Here's how it works in this case. Let's go back to your claim, the one to which I responded in the first place:

We'll accept - as per reductio ad absurdum - that the basis for your claim is sound - that we shouldn't reject the possibility of X till X is finally, formally, convincingly disproved. Russell's absurd version of X is the orbiting teapot: no he couldn't prove that such a thing did not exist, but since there's no reason to believe it does, there's no reason to make room for such a possibility in one's understanding of the universe. [And let's not get distracted by the Apollo missions and such; it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion]. It makes just as much sense to reserve judgment on your "supernatural" - for which there is no evidence, and no reason to suspect it - as it does to reserve judgment on Russell's Celestial Teapot. So, you see, if we accept your premiss - that we need to reserve judgment on any and all possibilities that are not formally ruled out - we arrive at the absurd conclusion that we have to reserve judgment on things that no sensible person reserves judgment on.

Get it?

Now, this is exactly the same message that others have been trying to send you here. You seem reluctant to listen. I thought maybe if someone of Bertrand Russell's stature made it for you, perhaps you'd give it more respect.

Tangent

It must be so tiring for a God to have to go about, constantly finding ways to hide in the gaps of our understanding.

Clouseau

That's got that sorted, then.

Clouseau

But the universe is not infinite, and has no infinite attributes.

Hex

You're sure about that? :Cheeky:

Julian

This, like all of Clouseau's arguments, is so goofy as to be humorous. Seeing no reason to waste any serious time dismantling his posts, we quickly move on to...
I messed around a bit with the definition above to further distance it from potentially covering silly claims in the realm of the supernatural, AKA pseudo-science, AKA Feynman's Cargo Cult Science.
Hmmm, god would have to call Randi to define the parameters of the test, of course, in order follow the rules. And would god need a million dollars?

JEF Intern: Mr. Randi, sir, you have Penn on line one and some 'god' character on line two. He says he wants to be tested but that he doesn't want the money when he wins. He says he can perform miracles like dowsing for water, resurrections and stuff like that.
Randi: Ask god if he can resurrect Uri Geller's career. In the meantime, put him on hold. I'll talk to Penn right away.

THE END

Julian