luvluv

That's not a universal negative because you restricted possible answers to real numbers.

Goliath

Starboy,

Via science, you are probably right: it would probably be impossible to know through science alone whether or not an event was supernatural. That's why I'm interested in logical proof rather than science (not to put down science...it's a wonderful tool, but not quite the right tool for this job).

Agreed.

This is something of an odd comment, since Pythagoras believed that numbers could literally be found in nature and that irrational numbers were an abomination.

In luvluv's case, he is to prove that there exists an event that is either caused by a supernatural being or has no natural cause.

Is the universe not nature? After all, we seemed to agree that nature consisted of all the things that we could observe with our five senses. Would this not also be the same thing as the universe?

I'm not the one making a claim here, luvluv is. Thus the burden of proof is upon luvluv's shoulders.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

luvluv,

Well, if a isn't a real number, then the limit as x->a of f(x) does not make sense, and hence does not exist.

My example stands.

Sincerely,

Goliath

RichardMorey

Keep in mind that we do not observe things - we observe the effects of things. For instance, we do not observe people - we observe the effects people have on the environment around them; namely, they reflect light onto our retina, which is then processed by our brain. We then infer the existence of a person at the location implied by the effect on our nervous system.

Also, we do not observe atoms - we observe the effects of atoms, by which we infer their existence.

Rephrased, this makes your statement: "nature consist[s] of all the things [whose effects] that we [can] observe with our five senses."

If there is a such thing as a god, and it has a direct or indirect effect on our senses, that entity would then be part of nature.

Also keep in mind that two very similar effects may have two different causes. For instance, the effect on our nervous system of stimulation by an electrode may be a particular smell (say, garlic), but that same effect may be cause by garlic itself in our environment.

So, when talking about "natural" and "supernatural" (I still would like to see an adequate definition of these) we must take the above into account. I believe it actually makes the "question" look as silly as it is.

Starboy

As a mathematician surely you know that unless you can state your assertions in an unambiguous language that relates to the axioms of some mathematical system you have no hope of proving anything. There are no axioms of nature or super nature that I am aware of. That is yet to be discovered by science. Problem is, there is no way to know if the "axioms of nature" have been discovered. Nature is not a man made universe, so we don't get to know the axioms by way of definition. The universe may not do math in any way that we understand it.


Sure, but all you have are words for something that no one can claim to understand. All we have are models of phenomena that we have managed to observe and many of them are either showing cracks at the edge or don't exactly fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. The words natural and universe are as much descriptions of our ignorance as they are of our knowledge. At the end of the day, you do not know what you do not know. That is why science is getting busier all the time with no let up in sight.


Sorry, consider this exchange directed at luvluv.

Starboy

luvluv

Goliath et al:

Understand, please, that I am not trying to falsify naturalism or prove supernaturalism. Indeed, the point of this thread is to point out that, to an ardent enough naturalist, this would be impossible. As long as the naturalist can appeal to future knowledge for what is currently inexplicable within a naturalistic paradigm, his naturalism can never be falsified. (I am sometimes of the opinion that even if there is life after death, an ardent naturalist can suppose that he is not actually dead but is in a comma or is having a dream or a delusion. Of course that is not biblical, but if it were not for the invervention of God, I think that this would be possible.)

I am trying to deal with logical possibilities. In terms of mathematics, it may be possible to prove a universal negative. I'm certainly not qualified to debate you on the issue.

But in terms of philosophy, there is no way to prove a universal negative. There is no way to prove, of a given phenomenon, that a naturalistic explanation is not logically possible.

(In fact, isn't part of inflationary theory that the laws of physics can change? This type of argument has a universal utility. If the laws of nature appear to have been suspended or contradicted, one could always appeal to inflationary theory as a naturalistic explanation.)

Oxymoron

What is it about minds that is so hard to grasp? Only the sheer scale of organisational complexity of the supporting hardware: individual neurons are algorithmically simple entities, relatively speaking. It is the facts that

(a) there are a lot of them
(b) they interconnect
(c) some are specialised
(d) it is very difficult to see them working in situ

that makes brain science so "mysterious". None of this is even slightly supernatural.

RichardMorey

Lulu, you still haven't defined naturalism.

Starboy

luvluv, you appear to have a point to all this. What is it? Explanations are not proof. They do not have to be true to be useful and can be outright false and still be useful. In this day and age, the only criterion for an explanation is how well it works. Science is in the business of finding working natural explanations for what is observed and all that is observed is natural. Religion is in the business of using supernatural explanations to understand and accept the human condition and requires that one must accept these explanations on faith. The current trend of accepting natural scientific explanations over religious supernatural explanations is due to the very good track record of science as compared to religion. If supernatural religion made no claims on explaining anything natural then there would be no need to accept natural scientific explanations over religious supernatural explanations or visa versa. There would also be no need for supernatural religion.

Starboy

luvluv

RichardMorey:

Yes, I did.

Starboy:

My point, I suppose, is that inasmuch as individuals are atheists as a result of the philosophy of naturalism, their atheism can never be undermined by any occurance.

My point is that a main argument for atheism is unfalsifiable, and therefore should not count as support for the an atheist's lack of belief. Inasmuch as atheism is adhered to because of the notion that God is superflous, and inasmuch as God's superflousness is buttressed by a naturalism which cannot be falsified, then such an atheism lacks real empirical support.

(Religion is barely, if at all, involved in or concerned with explaining natural occurences. Not much of the Bible is involved with explaining why it rains, or what lightning is, or why the sun rises.There is nothing at all about Christianity which would force one to believe that there are no natural laws. As I said, Christians believe in both totally natural occurances and in supernatural occurances. I think the creeping advance of scientific explanations over religious ones is a caricature of actual history. It could be more accurately described as the creeping advance of scientific explanations over superstitious ones. )

But finally, I'd like to ask you:

Is it your opinion that personal philosophies should be broadly falsifiable? Or is falsifiability only a requirement of scientifc theories.