dongiovanni1976x

If they could be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled they would by definition BE empirical.

JoeWallack

JW:
Yes, I Am an Ideologuee. Of Reality. From a Practical standpoint there's no significant difference between the Position that the Supernatural is Impossible (me) and the Supernatural is extremely unlikely (Ehrman). Either way the Skeptic starts with the Assumption that a Supernatural resurrection is not History. I commend Ehrman for starting out with this here because I think it is Theoretically the correct approach. Many Skeptics don't like to start out like this because they think from a Practical standpoint it makes them look like an idealogue to their Believer opponent and therefore they will be more persuasive without it.

The bottom line is that for a religious argument to have Logical standing you must use the Same rules of Logic that would be used in any other discipline. You can not use different rules and expect your conclusion to have any logical weight. This is Ehrman's point. You can argue for the resurrection as a theologian but not as a historian.

In mathematics 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. It is Impossible for 3 not to be the result. The probability of 3 is exactly 100%. The probability of anything else is -0-. This exactness is what mathematical formulas are based on. When a Historian looks for the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the probability that it was because God told him to do so (as opposed to him thinking God told him) is -0-. That's the Real world. "Impossible" is an accepted word in the Dictionary. When you no longer accept its Definition than any related argument has no Logical standing.

Again though, I don't need to have a probability for the Impossible here of -0-. Close to -0- yields the same conclusion. A supernatural resurrection is not historical. I could also Retreat my Conclusion to give it more weight to you. Any Impossible claim in the Past is not Historical (because Past evidence would be Inferior). Or any Unique Impossible claim is not Historical (because of lack of comparison).

JW:
You're being too cautious. We have no proven example of the Impossible ever happening. If you are unwilling to use that as a Rule that the Impossible is Impossible your related Uncertainty should prevent you from making any conclusions, including the Impossible is Possible.

In any case, the pratical problem for Believers who start with the Assumption that the Impossible is Possible is still the Distance between the best Possible evidence and what the evidence is for the supposed resurrection. I Am reminded of the classic movie The Chronicles of Riddick. As opposed to Jesus the Necromancer Leader appears to have non-human powers that are displayed to a multitude of contemporary hostile witnesses. Even so, how do you rule out that the Source is merely Superior science or even if it is Supernatural, it's not God or even a Divine source that is good?

The claimed Christian resurrection has Implications that it allowed Jesus to continue to communicate in scientifically detectable Ways. Yet science tells us that Jesus' ability to communicate for the last 2,000 years is completely consistent with his dying and not being resurrected. How far is this from the evidence Riddick had that the source of his opponent's power was God?



Joseph

Necromongers. N. Fictional Religious sect who believe Science should be used to impose primary religious belief that Life should primarily be a Preparation for Death. There are non-Fictional religions with the same high purpose but the discreet Historian does not name them.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Diogenes the Cynic

But there is nothing wrong with making a default assumption that natural laws cannot be violated until proven otherwise. If you don't make that assumption, you can't apply empirical method at all. Detectives investigating a murder would be wasting their time if they could not rule out supernatural explanations a priori.

jjramsey

Indeed. I never argued otherwise. My point is that when we consider concrete examples of things that are considered supernatural, we are considering things that could be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled if they were to exist. This means that your idea that the supernatural and the empirical are mutually exclusive is simply wrong.

jjramsey

There is nothing wrong with such an assumption provided that one understands why the assumption is being made in the first place and what possible evidence could overturn it.

This is not quite true. The empirical method is merely a matter of finding the best explanations for the observations that have been made. There is an assumption in the empirical method that the senses are reliable enough to make pertinent observations, but this is a weaker and less sweeping assumption than the idea that natural laws cannot be violated. Rather, that natural laws cannot be violated is a conclusion based on applying the empirical method.

Amaleq13

I would tend to agree with that statement but I disagree about the conjunction. "Natural law" describes what has been repeatedly observed to occur. Miracles are considered improbable because they are contrary to those observations. I consider "impossible" to connote a level of certainty that does not accurately reflect the contingent nature of scientific inquiry.

What usually happens isn't what always happens even if it is what has always been observed and what is incredibly unlikely to ever occur isn't the same as "impossible".

Amaleq13

Events that are not expected to occur very often are, by definition, "improbable".

I don't think your thought experiment implies anything except your ability to imagine an alternate universe. That you are able to imagine a universe in which magic apparently exists really says nothing about our own.

All miracles are, by definition, improbable. Specific alleged miracles are not credible because they lack reliable supporting evidence.

Amaleq13

"Immutable" is defined as "unchanging over time or unable to be changed" and the law you describe in your first sentence is changed by the end of it into another law describing the additional evidence. Therefore, it cannot be described as "immutable".

The "old" law has changed if only in the sense that it is no longer accurate in its description of the universe.

The observed entity/action would, by definition, no longer be "supernatural" or "non-empirical". IOW, an empirically verifiable god is not supernatural.

dongiovanni1976x

But my point is that how is it that we come to "consider" whether something is ABOVE the limits of the natural world (i.e. SUPERnatural) if the only apparatus we have for taking in data IS empirical, thus limited to the natural?

I think they are mutually exclusive. The idea of the supernatural derives from the natural. It is a mental construct and as such it can be demonstrated to be natural in origin. I contend that IF there exists something supernatural, we can never know about it, and as soon as it manifests itself into an empirical form, which we then could experience, that that aspect of it ceases to be supernatural and its origins will forever be hidden from our naturally bound method of perception.
That is by definition what SUPERnatural is. "above" the natural...they are mutually exclusive.

dongiovanni1976x

The original "law" I described never changes. A new law replaces it. Adherents to each can make there cases as to why they believe one cooresponds with nature better whereas the other fails. But they are now TWO laws.

And that is up to individuals to decide. That is why there are now two laws to choose from. Laws are immutable in the sense that they are discarded as "wrong" and the new ones then replace them are accepted as "right". The new information does not change the law. It simply creates a new one.

I thik we need a definition of "god" and a definition of "supernatural" to clear this issue up a bit.


What is an empirically verifiable god? If such an entity existed would we call it a god because it could do unexplained things which seemed to violate cause and effect according to its desires or would it be a god because it could contradict and thus violate cause and effect to its own desires? :huh: