madmax2976

Perhaps you are unaware that sometimes the very goal of philosophical discussion is to get at the root of so called “mainstream” definitions and question them. Keith Augustine’s article which I referenced attempted to get at the very heart of the terms “natural”, “supernatural”, “physical”, and “nonphysical”. He demonstrated that, in opposition to common thinking, these terms are not nearly as easy to define as people might normally think. That’s another goal of philosophical debate - to challenge ourselves and think out of the box – which is what Andrew argued for in regards to science.

In any case, I didn’t “redefine” anything. I specifically agreed to defend my view of naturalism.

A generic enough description that I can easily incorporate it into my own views. Dictionaries are NOT philosophical expositions on terms. If you want to really understand naturalism you don’t go to a dictionary any more than you would go to a dictionary to really understand theism.

Mainstream according to whom? To theists who interpret naturalism or to naturalists themselves? My position is very much in agreement with Richard Carrier’s position on naturalism, therefore its hardly unique. How many naturalists must concur before its “mainstream” and when was the vote taken among naturalists as to what mainstream naturalism is? For that matter, what is mainstream theism and who gets to decide?

Whether or not the “supernatural” exists. If you wish to describe a God as “supernatural” by definition then obviously it would be difficult to incorporate that with naturalism. Its sufficient for me to note that any sufficiently advanced being might very well appear as gods to us, but there need not be anything “supernatural” about them. Again, try thinking out of the box.

I specifically told Andrew that my view of naturalism could incorporate such things. However, there is still the case of the “supernatural” that can be discussed. That is where naturalism and theism (or supernaturalism) are in conflict. If he defines his deity as a supernatural being able to act on the natural world, then there will be conflict there as well. I merely needed him to define his God as a natural phenomena or an supernatural one so that the conflict could be clear.

Hopefully you’ll now see this was unnecessary. In addition, I even tried to change the title of the debate from naturalism vs. supernaturalism in the attempt to make the debate more precise.

This is a problem for supernaturalists not me. The only alternative is too allow supernaturalists to point some phenomena that can’t currently be explained under naturalism and assume they’ve actually supported their claim that something supernatural is the actual answer to the mystery. Theists typically don’t want to have to actually offer positive support for their case, but prefer to rest on what naturalism can’t explain as though they win because naturalists don’t have absolute knowledge. Thus, somehow, the merely possible becomes the more likely solution. That would be the “mockery” if it were allowed.

What I will agree with is the possibility of the supernatural in the face of a mystery. I will not agree to assumption of the truth of the supernatural in the face of the mysterious. Supernaturalists must support any claim that their supernatural possibilities are superior to naturalistic possibilities – which they continually fail to do.

Sure, with emphasis on “potential evidence”. The debate was about actual evidence not potential evidence. What theists need to do is take their “potential” evidence and demonstrate how it supports the likelihood of theism over naturalism.

Yes it would be. But since no one has used the word “MUST” except you, its not a problem for me. I was supporting the likelihood of naturalism over theism.

I never said anything about “equal” – you just made that up. But please define “unnatural” then we can talk more about this. Be sure to distinguish it from any highly evolved or advanced being able to perform usual or dramatic feats.

The “pass” is all in your head. You believe I was given one but this is based on your complete misunderstanding of my arguments. It was important for Andrew to define his deity as a “supernatural” being. Until he did so, your right, there would be no debate and I would have said as much. Naturalism contradicts supernaturalism and vice versa. His deity must contain supernatural elements, and his job would be to describe and support the existence of those supernatural elements to prove his case.

madmax2976

Actually it wasn't a personal attack at all. It was a valid observation made from his unfamiliarity with the various naturalist views that are out there.

A personal attack would be if I said his arguments were stupid because he wears funny clothes, shops at a bad store, or because he goes to the wrong church.

Philosoft

Your burglary analogy is wrong-headed. Broken glass is positive evidence of a burglary because we have prior positive knowledge that burglars sometimes break glass to enter houses. You are trying to associate alleged negative evidence of naturalism with positive knowledge of supernaturalism, which ends up a tautology.

<strong> Many problems here. Not the least of which is that it is, by definition impossible to discern a caused universe from an uncaused universe. Also, by definition humans lack the tools to 1) determine the nature of the universe and 2) determine the fundamental processes that precede universe creation.

<strong> 'Apparent design' is not the objective standard you seem to think it is. Andrew's argument basically reduces to, "I might design a universe like this if I were so capable." Cognitive psychology provides some fascinating insight into why humans see patterns that might be applicable here.


<strong> Merely asserting that these things exist is not what most would consider evidence.

<strong> My conclusion is that it is rather easy to create a worldview that is consistent with observed inconsistencies in other worldviews if objectivity is of no concern.

<strong> Here you equivocate; naturalism and science are not synonymous. Naturalism may very well be unfalsifiable, if all sensory evidence is defined as natural evidence and there exists no other suggested means of gathering knowledge. If we cannot, by definition, know if there is anything that can be called supernatural then it is meaningless to talk as if we can. Non-falisifiability is not a problem for naturalism per se, if there is no logically conceivable alternative.

<strong> Andrew needs to show that 'supernatural' and 'God' actually mean something and are not just collections of letters that represent nebulous objections to sound facts and theories. These words must have positive meaning before they can be suggested as alternatives to anything.

faded_Glory

I don’t understand any of this. If all the things Andrew mentioned are evidence for the supernatural, why then is not absolutely everything evidence for the supernatural? Why would a tree, a cloud, a mountain, hunger, joy, pain etc. etc. then not also count as evidence for the supernatural? After all, any of those things are consistent with the supernatural, no? Why draw the line at things that naturalism cannot currently explain? What is so significant about only those things that we can’t explain in our particular lifetime that exactly these things would count as evidence for the supernatural, but not any of the things that were unexplained at some time in the past but have been explained naturalistically since? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you actually believe that absolutely everything is indeed evidence for the supernatural? If that is the case, how would you ever differentiate a natural thing from a supernatural thing? Or are we justified to plug the word ‘supernatural’ into every unanswered question and sit back, content that we think we now understand everything?

I just don’t get it

fG

faded_Glory

To all,

You are free to think of my judgement what you like, but I have explained the reasons behind my judgement in a fairly lengthy post in the debate thread, and do not want to add to that. As they say, the jury will not enter into correspondence on the results.

fG

Vorkosigan

The term I used was SPECIFIC COMPLEXITY. If you are at all familiar with the science of intelligent design, you would understand this term, which explains your boomerang and tools examples.

The actual term, as you point out below, is SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. It has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

There is no "science" of intelligent design. I cannot be familiar with the non-existent. And ID concepts cannot possibly explain those examples.

As for an ecosystem, we have no positive proof that the ecosystem was not designed.

Yes, that is my whole point. "Complexity" is not a marker of Design, let alone "intelligent design." Ecosystems are more complex than boomerangs, but only the latter are designed.


Your post indicates that you are not actually familiar with the science of intelligent design, or you would have understood the term Specified Complexity.

Ah, I see you got the term right this time.

The fact that evolution apologists accept that many things have 'apparent design' indicates that intelligent design is not complete nonsense.

You're confused. "Design" does not necessarily imply conscious intellect. When you add the term "intelligent" to the term "design" you create massive problems for yourself.

The evolution apologists try to show why some things seem to be designed, but actually have naturalistic explanations. But one must actually weigh both explanations, and see which one seems most plausible. As well as consider examples of 'apparent design' where no natural explanation yet has been forthcoming.

Go ahead, give us some of these examples.

One cannot dismiss intelligent design as nonsense based on the current evidence.

That's very true. Long before current genetic evidence had been discovered, it had been dismissed based on much less evidence.....

The current explanations for apparent design are inadequate for this conclusion.

Thanks for your personal opinion.

If one dismisses intelligent design as nonsense, it must be done on philosophical grounds, not based on the evidence.

Please put forward your evidence for "intelligent design." Note that your evidence must not only demonstrate Design, it must demonstrate that the Design was the result of intelligent, intentional action, and not unconscious, automatic processes (like bees communicating, or ants building nests).

I am sure, however, that we will not see examples in your next post, but simply more preaching.

Intelligent design applies to more than just origin. The statistical measures can be used to examine anything, to determine if it more probably intelligently designed or not. This applies to radio transmissions, i.e. SETI program, as well as spying, determining whether intercepted transmissions are noise or whether they likely contain code to be sent for cryptographic analysis.

Mike, SETI has no clear system for determining whether things are Designed, and no statistical package can tell you that. Go over to the SETI website and find one! Only models formed from direct empirical experience with Designed objects can tell you that. That is why things like the Calico Site tools, or Tekties, were/are controversial. And since we don't have any known models of alien artifacts, determining whether a signal is from an alien civilization might be tricky.

Sometimes an artifact could have had intelligent origin but be heavily eroded, or it may have just eroded naturally into a certain shape. Intelligent design can be used to determine the probability of each explanation.

Give us an example. Settle the Calico Site controversy for us.

I don't need much in the way of mathematics to show that there is a high probability that the computer that you are typing on is a product of intelligent design, rather than undirected natural causes. This is NOT equivalent to saying that your computer had supernatural origin.

No, but you can because you have prior experience with objects manufactured by humans. And even with some experience, there's plenty of uncertaintly. Just find the Calico Early Man Site, and tell us once and for all, using the "science" of intelligent design, whether Leakey really found 11,000 stone tools there.

Michael

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

madmax2976

You’ve got it backwards. There is a broken window. We wish to explain the broken window. There are numerous possibilities as to the cause of the broken window – a burgular did it, a baseball from the neighbor’s kids, a bird flew into it, some severe vibration shattered it, etc. Now we wish to decide which option is the more likely, but there is insufficient evidence – no bat, no ball, no dead bird, no missing property or other signs of intrusion, and no earthquake recorded. Going with his analogy, theists would like to say there’s a broken window, point out there is insufficient evidence to prove the other options, and pretend this actually shows the higher likelihood of the supernatural possibility. Sorry, but no cigar.

Completey wrong. All this does is allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation. You do NOT win by default however much you would like it to be that way. You will have to actually support why your supernatural hypothesis is superior to any other hypothesis. THEN you will have supported the supernatural.

Andrew’s argument was a non-sequitur. He never tied the "cause" to his deity, Concluding the universe was caused does NOT provide evidence of a deity. It only allows for the possibility of a deity. If his argument of causation holds, then Andrew must demonstrate why a deity is the more likely answer to the puzzle than any other.

Of course they can. But presumably Andrew wants me to believe theism is more credible, but he failed to argue why. He failed to distinguish between natural design and intelligent design.
No counter argument is really needed. All Andrew has done is point out a question for which we seek an answer. – How did the universe become so complex? Now Andrew must support why his hypothesis is the more likely of any other hypotheses.

Evidence of what? He failed to prove either even exists. He never even defined what “free will” was.

Well you seem to understand now. And at this point do you not agree that support must be given in order to determine which view is more likely the correct one? And apart from our ability to conclusively do that, we can go along with the more likely scenario ,which even Andrew was forced to admit is the naturalistic answer – “the supernatural is rare at best”.

It is more correct to say that mysteries were pointed out that neither naturalism or supernaturalism can explain, even though both can speculate. In the face of such mystery's one can withold jugement altogether, leap to a conclusion, or go with what has been the most successful - in this case naturalism.

Assuming your even correct, is theism falsifiable? If not, so what? If it is, tell me how.

This is nonsense. I’m not constricted to any particular type of naturalism any more than Andrew is constricted hold any particular type of theism. If you wish to mandate what a person must believe in regards to any worldview then please show your authority to do so. I personally know of many theists who are still theists even though their view of theism may not be in the “mainstream”. This is nothing but a blatant attempt to impose a double standard and/or to artificially leverage one’s personal opinion, or the opinion held by the supposed majority, as the “right” opinion without having to actually argue for it. I’m sure the argumentum ad populum fallacy fits in there somewhere.

Don’t know, don’t care. Andrew will find a few billion people that will disagree with his concepts of theism – so what?

All I have to do is point out that there’s nothing inherently supernatural about powerful beings. If Andrew defines his deity as being supernatural, then we have clarified the conflict between our positions and we’re ready to rock n’ roll. But I wanted it made clear what the distinction was - he believes in the supernatural and I do not.

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

What an interesting question.

I don’t understand any of this. If all the things Andrew mentioned are evidence for the supernatural, why then is not absolutely everything evidence for the supernatural? Why would a tree, a cloud, a mountain, hunger, joy, pain etc. etc. then not also count as evidence for the supernatural? After all, any of those things are consistent with the supernatural, no? Why draw the line at things that naturalism cannot currently explain? What is so significant about only those things that we can’t explain in our particular lifetime that exactly these things would count as evidence for the supernatural, but not any of the things that were unexplained at some time in the past but have been explained naturalistically since? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you actually believe that absolutely everything is indeed evidence for the supernatural? If that is the case, how would you ever differentiate a natural thing from a supernatural thing? Or are we justified to plug the word ‘supernatural’ into every unanswered question and sit back, content that we think we now understand everything?

Actually if we were to assume the truth of theism (creator/designer manifested the universe) then everything we see is evidence of theism by simple deduction. Or if one assumes the truth of naturalism then everything we see becomes evidence of naturalism by deduction. As you can see this doesn’t get us anywhere. I attempted to present evidence where naturalistic explanations break down to provide justification for the existence of a supernatural agency. This provides an independent rationale for deducting the rest of what we observe is evidence of theism rather than merely deducing so based on a priori grounds.

Vorkosigan

Actually if we were to assume the truth of theism (creator/designer manifested the universe) then everything we see is evidence of theism by simple deduction. Or if one assumes the truth of naturalism then everything we see becomes evidence of naturalism by deduction.[/b]

Nobody "assumes" naturalism. For the thousandth time, Andrew, naturalism is verified by its success in producing reliable and useful evidence of the world. That is why theists developed and refined naturalism. Get it? All early scientists and their advocates, from the Islamic groundbreakers, through Galileo, Copernicus, Agricola, Tycho, Kepler, Bacon and so forth, were theists.

In order to demonstrate theism, all you have to do is show that some particular theistic belief gives us a more useful and reliable picture of reality than naturalism. Good luck!

As you can see this doesn’t get us anywhere.

No, it doesn't get YOU anywhere. For people who make judgements based on evidence, it is quite sufficient.

I attempted to present evidence where naturalistic explanations break down to provide justification for the existence of a supernatural agency.

But you didn't. So far you have not presented even a single valid example of a place where naturalism fails.

This provides an independent rationale for deducting the rest of what we observe is evidence of theism rather than merely deducing so based on a priori grounds.

As we have all pointed out, even if our current concept of naturalism fails, that would not support theism. This ridiculous two-valued logic space you've created does not correspond to the ones normally considered. As several posters have stated, there are alternatives -- pantheism, psychic powers, cosmic consciousnesses, aliens, and many others. All of these have to be disproved before we'd accept some version of theism.

All evidence to date -- evidence developed by theists, using methods developed by theists, has failed to provide any justification for theism. Ironic, eh?

Michael

joedad

If the natural is evidence of the supernatural, as Andrew and Mike claim, then one must conclude that the supernatural is a reality. My question, however, based on that same logic, would be, "why stop at the mere supernatural?"

Would not the mere supernatural be evidence of the supersupernatural? It follows, using this same logic. And then of course the mere supersupernatural would be evidence for the super(3)natural, and on we go, ad infinitum I suppose.

But that's only on the "super" side of natural. What about the subnatural? Would it also not exist using the same logic that inferred the supernatural? And of course the subnatural would be evidence of the subsubnatural and sub(3)natural, and on and on we go in that direction.

And what about the rightnatural and the leftnatural, the omninatural, seminatural, binatural, trinatural...? Instead of looking only for evidence of the mere supernatural we ought to be looking for evidence of all these extranatural states. Maybe they somehow arrange themselves like Kepler's crystal spheres.

In the end, I am still willing to conclude that the mere supernatural or any other extranatural state exists, given evidence of course.

joe