"You're a Materialist/Naturalist"

[Ben Davis]

Ben Davis - What I'm trying to show is that even if we consider the Supernatural as a hypothesis, we cannot possibly find any evidence to support it so it is pointless trying to posit it as an explanation for a phenomenon.

Okay, let's assume the supernatural is real for a moment. We therefore have a definition (however accurate) of what is supernatural. That definition contains attributes/values against which any interaction can be measured.

An event occurs that may be supernatural...

The approach then becomes 'gather data regarding the interaction and measure it against the attributes/values that we use to define 'supernatural''. If we get a match, it's a supernatural event. If we get a close comparison, that may tell us things about the attributes/values which will help us refine our definition of supernatural leading to a match/no match. If we get no match at all, we would consider an event as natural. Additionally, that definition may be used to design experiments/models to test our understanding. Over time, with continuous measurement and experimentation/modelling, our understanding of the supernatural improves until we consider our definition 'robust'. A robust definition can then be used for practical purposes (e.g. banks might want to be able to hide their vaults in a supernatural realm to prevent theft). Further, we may find, as our definition improves, that events which we previously thought were natural are actually supernatural.

There's no omniscience required; this is the same approach we apply to every field of study.

Theists claim that we discount the supernatural and claim it definitely does not exist. I disagree with this.

What do you disagree with? The theist claims or that the supernatural definitely doesn't exist?

Some people do claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. I'm one of them. This is on the basis of the lack of evidence for most supernatural claims/events/'hypotheses' etc. and the overwhelming abundance of refutations of such evidence as is presented for them. Like I said earlier, I'm not absolutist about it. All it would take is decent evidence to change my mind.

[Tonus]

OK, so this seems to be a Christian tactic, claiming materialism/naturalism is a religion which relies on faith. Firstly, I find it strange that a religious person would claim being religious is a bad thing.

I think that it's another version of the "god-shaped hole in your heart" argument, wherein the theist insists that you must know that god exists and are simply in denial. They are arguing that the need to be religious is ingrained and therefore points to the existence of god.

The need to belong to a social group and to form bonds with allies (and conversely, to identify and overcome enemies) may well be ingrained in us, and perhaps religion is one of the ways that it manifests. Filling that "hole" with god is extremely appealing since many religions offer a fantastic reward for doing so (and some threaten a horrifying punishment for not doing so). But we fill it many ways, seeing as we separate ourselves by so many different criteria: nationality, race, sports teams, brands of goods, and so on.

Hence, Yahweh might be the New York Mets of the Godly Baseball League. It makes sense when put that way, doesn't it?

[FreeTony]

Ben - it's probably down to how poorly defined the supernatural is, that we possibly disagree. I'm using the definition by which an agent in this supernatural realm can cause something to happen in the natural realm that breaks the normal laws in the natural realm.

I'd say in the example you give, it could possibly be something natural or supernatural (under the definition I am using). If we use the example of a few ghost sightings, these could be explained by (assuming just a natural realm and supernatural realm for simplicity):

1. Natural laws we already know
2. Natural laws we do not yet know
3. A supernatural influence

Even though ghost sighting can be explained by 1), lets imagine they can't. Now we have a choice of 2 or 3. We can't possibly claim 3, as we can't disprove 2. I can't discount 3 either (though I'd bet my house on it being 2). If I was omniscient I could do this.

I disagree with the Theist claims that we all just claim the supernatural definitely does not exist "on faith alone", which is what I've seen written by quite a few of them.

[Alex K]

Ben - it's probably down to how poorly defined the supernatural is, that we possibly disagree. I'm using the definition by which an agent in this supernatural realm can cause something to happen in the natural realm that breaks the normal laws in the natural realm.

And by that you mean the currently known laws I presume?

[Ryantology]

What is a supernatural cause? What does the word mean?

It means "my argument is as shitty as a used diaper and I'll burn in hell before I admit it".

[Bad Writer]

Tide goes in; tide goes out. You can't explain that. Checkmate, atheists!

[Minimalist]

OK, so this seems to be a Christian tactic, claiming materialism/naturalism is a religion which relies on faith.

Xtians claim many things. Most of them are idiotic. Next.

[Bad Writer]

What claims aren't? That word "most" is throwing me off.

[Minimalist]

I didn't feel like running through the whole cataloge one by one.

[Esquilax]

OK, so this seems to be a Christian tactic, claiming materialism/naturalism is a religion which relies on faith. Firstly, I find it strange that a religious person would claim being religious is a bad thing.

Ain't you got the memo, bud? There's only one religion that ain't bad to a christian, and it sure as fuck isn't Strawman Naturalism!