Christian

Rimstalker,

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."

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea

I thought I was pretty clear that I DO NOT RULE IT OUT. I just have no reason to ASSUME that it is the most likely answer. I have no reason to CHOOSE IT FIRST.

I said "unlikely" and "probability" and "suggests"

and you replied with "rule out" and "could not possibly" and "must work in all situations" and "cannot ever work"


Do you see how you are projecting an argument onto me that I did not make?



If that is your interpretation of the Naturalist "worldview" despite concrete evidence that it is not my "view" you must admit your fault in not listening to what I AM SAYING. You are assuming what you think I should say according to your understanding.

But since you are asking for MY UNDERSTANDING you have to LISTEN TO ME.

(the caps aren't shouting, I'm not mad here, just got lazy about italics)

I'll try to summarize again, but I think you should really go back and read what I wrote again WITHOUT a preconceived notion of my response.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
=================
The PROBABILITY of a supernatural explanation is SO SMALL, IN MY EXPERIENCE, that it does not make sense for me to ASSIGN it as the "most logical cause" of anything until something happens to make it less improbable.

I WILL NOT PLACE A BET on my son successfully driving an open wheel race car at the age of three until or unless SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS to suggest it has a higher probability than my experience currently suggest. In other words, I think it is intellectually honest, given the experiences and observations of the world as we know it, to say that "3 year olds cannot drive full-sized race cars competitively." Don't you agree?

That's what I'm trying to say. I may act as if it is ruled out, but that is just an artifact of it being so improbable. Not that it is actually RULED OUT a priori.

Christian

Rhea,

I realize that you are not arguing from silence here. You seem to be erring in the opposite direction ... thinking that a general rule must be absolutely true in all possible situations.

Also, I'm not suggesting that anyone believe anything in the complete absence of evidence.

Respectfully,

Christian

Jamie_L

Christian,

To steal something from another poster in another thread:

If someone told you that your next door neighbors had moved during the night and that talking giraffes had moved in, what would you think? Would you seriously withhold judgement, being completely open to the idea that it was perfectly possible such a thing had happened, until you investigated your neighbor's house? Or, would you assume this person was incorrect until he had something better than an outlandish story?

This is the way I approach supernaturalism. It's not just the fact that I have no evidence that talking giraffes aren't in my neighbor's house. All my experience and observations and research about how the world works culminates in the strong suspisicion that there aren't supernatural events - that, in fact, the natural world is a closed system unto itself with only natural causes and effects.

Of course, this is more theory than philosophy. It can be disproven by a single supernatural event, and I'm open to that slim possibility. However, it will take more than just some people telling me about talking giraffes in the house next door. It will take some convincing evidence.

Jamie

Christian

Rhea,

Sorry if I misunderstood you. If you do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, then I guess you really can't answer my question here.

Respectfully,

Christian

GunnerJ

Well, there's the problem, Christian: the laws of nature are descriptive. That is, they are based on observations of events, they are not hardwiring that was deciphered by humans. Our conception of natural laws (and by this, i assume you mean things such as the 2nd law of thermodynamic or Newton's laws of motion) could always be inacurate, in as much as we do not have prefect knowledge of how the world works.

Remember, a long time ago, lightning was a "supernatural" event.

Christian

Mortal Wombat,

Cool name, BTW.

I realize that the light bulb is a based on natural phenomena. My point in that analogy was merely that it is not rational to conclude that something must not exist on the basis of never having personally encountered it.

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea

Nope, nope, nope.

I have never said "ALL POSSIBLE SITUATIONS"

Christian, I am an engineer. An experimental engineer at that. It would be foolish and career-ending if I claimed that a thing had to work in all possible situations to be true. I use statistics and probability to draw conclusions.

This means that if it happens _often_enough_ to result in a reasonable functionality, then it's okay.

So if my car starts every morning, AND has a fairly new starter AND has a charged battery with no shorts AND has robust relays, THEN it is reasonable to assume and predict that it will start again tomorrow. EVEN THOUGH I maintain the possibility that it might not start because those things can fail.

HOWEVER,

The supernatural claim, in my experience, is like saying that I have to entertain the possibility that all cars in the United States will ALL fail to start tomorrow and I should act as if this is going to happen by, for example, using every penny of my retirement to buy stock in AAA or something.

The probability exists. And I am quite alright with accepting that. BUT, my experience suggests that the probability IS SO SMALL, because IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, that it would be madness to act as if it was the best prediction of future events.

Christian

Jamie,

I'm not suggesting you believe anything without evidence. I'm questioning why you should rule out a theoretical possibility before you even address the evidence at hand.

If you are open to that "slim possibility" then my confusion is concerning a different outlook than yours.

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea

And my offering to you is that perhaps you have SIMILARLY misjudged the WORLDVIEW and that there is perhaps NO ONE who rules it out completely.

That perhaps you have misinterpreted The Manual and the Naturalistic world view is more logical than you had given it credit for.

Conclusive evidence can change a lot of minds.


Good Topic, btw. An interesting discussion.