Autonemesis

You misunderstand. Supernatural causes have not been ruled out. The people proposing them have failed to provide evidence. It's more correct to say that supernaturual causes have yet to be "ruled in."

Show the evidence. But of course, the attempt to do so will unavoidably undermine the claim of supernaturalism. For if you can show evidence of some particular cause or agency that explains an observed phenomenon, then in what way is it supernatural? The fact that evidence exists for a thing is what makes that thing natural, vs. supernatural.

Mageth

I would define a supernatural event as "God acting in the world in a way contrary to the laws of nature." Or without the theistic overtones, "an actual exception to a natural law."

Others have asked this, perhaps, but can you give an example of such an exception? Preferably one that's well-documented and supported with evidence?

Note that to determine that an event was "an actual exception to a natural law", one would have to use the naturalistic, scientific method. There is no "supernatural method" for determining such, other than faith, perhaps.

And it's interesting to note that, with all the many millions of controlled, scientific experiments that have been performed over the last couple of centuries, none have ever detected an "exception to a natural law." Strange results have been detected in such experiments, surely, but such results have typically resulted in modification of our understanding of "natural law" to incorporate the "exceptions," if they were not determined to be experimental error. The end result has never been "Well, this doesn't fit natural law, and we can't make it fit, so it must be supernatural." Repeatable, verifiable experimental results have always, to my knowledge, been explainable under natural law.

It seems like if such exceptions were possible, one would be experimentally detected and verified every once in a while.

Biff the unclean

Could you imagine just how different and how horrible a world where there was the supernatural would be compared to the one we live in?

It would be impossible to know anything.

You couldn't know that two plus two equaled four. Every once in awhile two plus two might, by magic (call it the supernatural if you must, but you are talking about magic) might equal four point oh oh oh five. Or, by magic, it might not.

You could have no idea if when you turned on your computer to talk to II that it wouldn't bite your hand right off. You could have no idea when you went to the corner deli to buy lunch if you would turn into a gold fish on your way home.

Superstitionists usually portray the supernatural as an occasional fun thing that resembles a Penn & Teller act. But if there was actually a supernatural it would mean the end of the world as we know it.

Ojuice5001

Supernaturalism does not mean events that break natural laws. Supernatural events are naturally indeterministic--natural causes cause them, but do not determine how they will turn out. The supernatural cause guides them, determining how they turn out. Most supernaturalists have an intutive understanding of this, but seldom spell it out as much as I insist on.

For instance, Allah caused a US military helicopter to explode because he considers us invaders. Does this mean that there's no chemical explanation? Of course not. It means that Allah used chemical phenomena to explode the helicopter. Those are two different kinds of explanation, and it's an error to think that one replaces the other.

And supernatural causation may well have to work this way, rather than miracles being possible. Yet everyone insists on equating supernaturalism and miracles.

xian

"I'm not qualified to comment on the "naturalist worldview" because I haven't read the manual"


well let me give you a hand by quoting from the manual:

naturalism: the position that nature is all there is, and that a supernatural explanation is not necessary for the universe.


there you go!

Mageth

For instance, Allah caused a US military helicopter to explode because he considers us invaders. Does this mean that there's no chemical explanation? Of course not. It means that Allah used chemical phenomena to explode the helicopter. Those are two different kinds of explanation, and it's an error to think that one replaces the other.

But one can remove Allah from the equation without changing the results. Allah is not necessary as an explanation for the crash - the "chemical" explanation is sufficient. The Allah explanation doesn't replace the "chemical" explanation; it's unnecessarily added to the explanation.

xian

but this is impossible, since a naturalists has ruled out supernaturalism before science even begins. therefore, no amount of proof will satisfy. even if God appears, the naturalist can always say that he witnessed a bizzare, yet god-like manifestation of an infaltionary quantum fluctuation.

Ojuice5001

Why is the helicopter in Iraq? Only because it's flies and is headed southeast? No, it's also because Bush wants nuclear weapons removed from Iraq, a boost to his ego, and oil rights for the US. That certainly isn't false, even though you can understand the physics of flight without it.

So how do you know that supernatural explanations are false? Not because of the predictabilty of some of the world, like Biff the Unclean was saying.

Mageth

but this is impossible, since a naturalists has ruled out supernaturalism before science even begins. therefore, no amount of proof will satisfy. even if God appears, the naturalist can always say that he witnessed a bizzare, yet god-like manifestation of an infaltionary quantum fluctuation.

Jiminy christmas, just how many strawmen do you have in you, xian?

Mageth

So how do you know that supernatural explanations are false? Not because of the predictabilty of some of the world, like Biff the Unclean was saying.

I didn't say they were false; I said they were unnecessary.