Starboy

Arg! Do events caused by god have a label on them saying "made in heaven"? For events that lack a natural explanation is there a way to know the lack is due to its supernatural origins or just simply a lack of knowledge? Would QM qualify as supernatural since it posits that the exact outcome of a specific event is unknowable before it happens?

The fundamental problem is that we posit the existence of two entities, the supernatural and the natural. We define all phenomena observed or inferred from observation to be natural. Thus we can and are exploring the natural. Therefore any event we observed would be by definition natural. Unless there are events that are both natural and supernatural there is no way of even talking about an event that is unobservable. And of those proposed natural/supernatural events, the supernatural part would still be undetectable since all we see is the natural.

So without a test for the supernatural the concept is meaningless. Sure you can make up words and ask does the framitz exist, but from a scientific point of view unless you can come up with an objective operational definition that can be repeatedly performed and results in confirming evidence, it is all just a bunch of philosophical nonsense. And even in the case where you did succeed in defining the supernatural, again from the scientific point of view, if there were natural explanations that were more powerful and were consistent with other scientific knowledge, the supernatural definition would still be considered of little value. Why use a rock to bang in a nail when you have a hammer?

Starboy

Goliath

Starboy,

Probably not.

I don't know.

Unknown.

Uhhh..actually, nature consists of a lot of entities, but I understand what you're trying to say.

Not to be nitpicky, but what do you mean by "observation"? Do you mean the five senses?

Not necessarily. Suppose for the moment that the xian god exists, and suppose that he intervenes to reverse all gravity on Earth for two seconds. Even though this event ended up having some very observable results, this would be a supernatural event, since it was caused by a supernatural entity.

That doesn't stop the supernatural from existing, though, does it?

No it isn't. See above.

I'm not so much interested in scientific experimentation here as I am in proof.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

Golliath:

So in your opinion it is possible to prove a negative?

RichardMorey

If an ancient man asked himself what the explanation for, say, the weather was, he would be at a loss. Ancient men invented gods and other things to explain phenomena they could not understand.

There are phenomena we don't understand, and phenomena we do. Among those that we don't, we can divide them into phenomena which can be explained and those that cannot (either of these categories may be empty). Given a particular unexplained phenomena X, I am not aware of any method that would allow us to place X in one of the two categories. Anyone who dogmatically asserts that X is in either category is unjustified.
However, induction would suggest that a safe bet would be to place X in the category of things that can be explained.

Let us say X is the mind. You say you think that the mind is in the category of the unexplainable. You have just made the same mistake as these dogmatic "naturalists," as you call them.

Please define naturalism for us.

Goliath

luvluv,

Well, what do you mean, exactly, by "proving a negative?" If you mean proving that a statement is false, then of course such a thing is possible!

Here's a quick example from Calculus. Let f be the following real-valued function:

f(x)=1 if x is rational,
f(x)=0 if x is irrational.

Now, it can be shown that the limit as x -> 0 of f(x) does not exist (if you really want the proof, let me know and I can supply it, but something tells me that you might not be interested in it). Thus I have proven a negative! Taa-daa!!

Now, that leaves you with the task of proving that it is impossible to show that there exists an event with no natural cause. How are you going to be able to do that, you ask? Beats me! It's not my problem, though, is it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

Golliath:

I should have said, is it your opinion that it is possible to prove a UNIVERSAL negative.

Statements that begin the with words "There are NO..." and do not end in a qualifier like "in my house" or "in this chair".

A person could never prove that there are no little green men, or that there is no life somewhere else in the universe. A person could likewise never prove that there is no naturalistic explanation for a particular phenomenon. Even in the case you suggest about gravity reversing itself, I'm sure an ardent naturalist would quite confidently proclaim that there was a natural explanation for the phenomenon which we just haven't discovered yet. He would then go about his day quite undisturbed.

RichardMorey:

To clarify, I said that I was not dogmatic about the issue. I said that my faith does not require me to believe this. As a Christian I believe that there are some phenomenae which are immediately explicable without resort to divine intervention, and some phenomenae which are not. My faith would not be harmed regardless of the category that the mind happened to fall into. Your faith, however, in the philosophy of naturalism (if you are a naturalist) would require you to believe that the mind MUST have a fully exhaustive and totally naturalistic explanation.

It is merely MY OPINION that the mind is not explicable in natural terms. If it turns out to be explainable, then I will be wrong. That is because supernaturalism, as regards any event, is falsifiable. But naturalism is not because of the appeal to a future explanation.

My defintion of naturalism would be the belief that all events and entities are reducible to mindless natural processes.

Goliath

luvluv,

You've gone back to your unproven assertion, eh? Okay, lemme know when you're interested in picking up the discussion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

The statement: "No naturalistic explanation exists for A" is a universal negative.

Golliath my friend, I am asking you a simple direct question:

Is it possible to prove a universal negative?

Starboy

From a scientific point of view, without a test for "made in heaven" there is no way to know of a supernatural cause for the event. It could be some aspect of gravity yet to be discovered.

What it doesn't stop is speculation about the supernatural existing. Lack of evidence is not "proof" of existence or non-existence.

I find this point of view fascinating. It is very mystical and Pythagorean. Prove what? No one knows what the universe is or how it works. That is what science is trying to figure out and is exploring it as we speak. How would you know what to prove since we don't know what nature is let alone super nature?

Starboy

Goliath

luvluv,


Yes. Let f(x) be the real valued function mentioned above. No real number a exists such that the limit as x->a of f(x) exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath