Christian

Rimstalker,

At the very least, Biff has been asserting such a view on this thread. Some quotes:

"Science has been investigating claims of the supernatural since science started. All of these claims have either been hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural events. There isn't any supernatural."
"There is not bases to any supernatural claims."
"There is still no supernatural."
"there's no way for you to know how a naturalist would react because God has never appeared. Get over it. There is no real magic, it's only tricks that fool you."

I believe you, but the phrase "there isn't any supernatural" is a poor way to communicate such an idea. The plain meaning seems to be exactly what you say it is not. Assumptions ought not to be stated as facts, especially when they are a central element of a definition. Just my impression of course shrug

I would be against such an attitude myself.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

All you have offered are sweeping accusations. I don't see anything constructive in countering with sweeping denials, but if you insist:

I do have evidence

Please show me where I have tried to fool anyone with anything.

I have not knowingly mocked anyone. Please show me where you believe I did this.

Please read back through my posts.

I thought you were stressed and simply venting. If you really want me to deny all of your sweeping accusations I will.

I'm afraid that the Chiefs aren't going to ditch Robinson, the worst Defensive Coordinator in the NFL. Other than that, not much.

I don't.

Respectfully,

Christian

mike_decock

Any person with a supernatural bias can explain any event (no matter how normal) in supernatural terms, whether or not they are creative or intelligent.

The problem is not the evidence, but the ignorance and supernatural presuppositions brought to the table when considering the evidence.

-Mike...

mike_decock

Anything we perceive with our senses is a natural event. Whenever you conclude that a natural event has a supernatural cause, you are taking the easy way out.

A supernatural solution is never the most rational one, it is the simplest one.

-Mike...

Christian

Chris,

Why do you say that? If we claim the supernatural exists we are then forced somehow to use it as an explaination for any currently unexplained phenomena?

Why so? Why not simply go with the explaination that makes the most sense? That might be the supernatural in some cases. That might be "we don't know" in other cases. What is wrong with simply going with the explanation that best fits the data?

If you made the choice you described above, yes it would. But that's not the only choice available. You seem to have created a false dichotomy here. You could apply the supernatural explanation judiciously and only where it fits the data.

The supernatural should only be used as an explanation only when the least improbable explanation. I defer to C.S. Lewis to provide an example:

"When the Old Testament says that Sennacherib's invasion was stopped by angels (2 Ki 19:35-36), and Herodotus says it was stopped by a lot of mice who came and ate up all the bowstrings of his army (Herodotus, Bk II, Sect 141), an open-minded man will be on the side of the angels. Unless you start by begging the question there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels or in the action ascribed to them. But mice just don't do these things."

Respectfully,

Christian

mike_decock

The gospels myths have Jesus on the cross for a mere 3 hours or so. The average lifespan of a crucified person was 3-4 days and some have been reported as surviving for 9 days on the cross.

Thousands upon thousands of people suffered worse crucifixions than Jesus reportedly did.

-Mike...

GunnerJ

I'm not sure he's outright stating that supernatural events are impossible. He's just saying that there isn't. There's a difference between "isn't there" and "mustn't be."

Of course, Biff can speak for himself. If he does think the supernatural is impossible because of lack of evidence, then I guess there's a first time for everything!

Think of it this way. If you were driving through a desert and a passenger warned you that you would hit a moose, would you say :There is no evidence that a mosse could walk into a road, and I'm going to act on this assumption." Or would you just cock your eyebrow a bit and say "There aren't any mooses out here!"

Now, it's possible by some anomoly that a moose is wandering the desert and could be hidden behind a rock so you don't see it until it steps onto the road. But just because you, quite rightly, said that there's no mooses around doesn't mean that you completely ruled out the possibility.

Naturalism, as I understand it, is just taking this to its logical conclusion. It's possible that things like gods and demons and magic exist, but we haven't seen any examples of it, and every time someone thought they had an example in the past, it turned out to be somethign else that was missunderstood. I don't doubt that we will come across things that are unexplained, but that's a porr excuse, given the historical record, to jump to magical thinking.

Earlier, you defined the supernatural as an "exception to natural law." I have argued that such exceptions have occured in the past, and that they were caused by an incomplete understanding of the natural laws: the were phenomena which were unexplained by the understanding of nature at the time. We still have an incomplete understanding of how the Universe really works, so if something occurs which we can't explain in terms of our understanding of the Universe, wouldn't calling it "supernatural" be an example of the attitude you claimed to be against?

mike_decock

Yup. Theism, Christianity, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny are all natural, superstitious beliefs with their roots in mythology and are the sociological byproducts of the evolution of subjective consciousness.

-Mike...

The AntiChris

But in order to do that, you need to answer the question I posed in my last post:
Can you answer this?

Chris

Biff the unclean

If he does think the supernatural is impossible because of lack of evidence, then I guess there's a first time for everything!
Nope I am saying that they are impossible.
In fact their impossibility is the single unifying factor of all "supernatural" events. They are effects without appropriate causes.
If the effect no mater how unique or bizarre has an appropriate cause then it isn't supernatural, people who claim it is are merely deluded. That is the bases of stage magic act. The magic word doesn't make the rabbit appear. Sticking it in a false table top makes it appear.