(March 3, 2016 at 6:10 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 3, 2016 at 5:56 am)AJW333 Wrote: The reason we have the word "supernatural" is to describe events that actually occur outside natural law, not just something that occurs within natural law that we don't yet understand. Do you see  the distinction?

No.... that's wrong.
The reason we have the word "supernatural" is because people are ignorant and have active imaginations to compensate.... doesn't mean that what gets imagined corresponds to reality, but I can see how it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

So the dictionary is wrong?

(March 3, 2016 at 6:29 am)AJW333 Wrote: So the dictionary is wrong?

Dracula, supernatural. Fairies and goblins, supernatural. Ghosts, supernatural. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, supernatural. Fiction or figments of minds.

Earthly phenomenas, unexplained.

Clear enough?

(March 3, 2016 at 6:29 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 3, 2016 at 6:10 am)pocaracas Wrote: No.... that's wrong.
The reason we have the word "supernatural" is because people are ignorant and have active imaginations to compensate.... doesn't mean that what gets imagined corresponds to reality, but I can see how it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

So the dictionary is wrong?

Did I correct you on the definition of "supernatural"?
Or did I provide a reason for the existence of the word?

(March 3, 2016 at 6:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, the distinction is that you want to make the unknown sound more mysterious than it is. You want there to be a supernatural. It doesn't mean there is.

It may be natural, it may not. Concluding that it's not, because it's currently unknown, is the argument from ignorance. 

its not that I want there to be a supernatural, I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural exists, ie there  are events that really do take place which are outside of, or in violation of natural law. life from non-life would be one such event. 

concerning the argument from ignorance, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If we have natural laws that define the way things work and something completely violates that law, this isn't just an "unknown," but according to the dictionary definition, it is something supernatural.

---

(March 3, 2016 at 6:33 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 3, 2016 at 6:29 am)AJW333 Wrote: So the dictionary is wrong?

Did I correct you on the definition of "supernatural"?
Or did I provide a reason for the existence of the word?

How would you define the word "supernatural?"

[Edited, I was being a bit too sarcy!]

This is what he's trying to say:

"If reality doesn't fit our current models of it, which are perfect, then nature isn't what we think it is. There must be other things... supernatural things!"

No.

If reality doesn't fit our current models, our models are wrong.

He's also suggesting we will never, ever learn how certain things work, according to his judgement. How exactly is that useful? Whether or not they will be explained in the future does not rely on people's opinions right now.

Let's make it even more simple. I've given up debating this guy, but for the listeners at home:

Behind door number 1, we have natural and currently explainable occurrences.

Behind door number 2, we have natural but currently unexplained occurences.

Behind door number 3, we have "supernatural".

The theist tells us that a particular occurrence is not behind door number 1. Often they are wrong, they simply don't understand the subject. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and say we agree it's not behind door number 1.

What's the conclusion? They say it's behind door number 3. When asked how they know this, they say they don't think it would ever be behind door number 2. Or else they try and pretend that there is no door 2, and that it's just part of door number 3. Either way, it's blatantly ridiculous. When the doors are finally opened as science continues to find new things out, time and again things are behind door number 2. The people who said they weren't were wrong. They had just given up any further investigation. It may be that we never find out whether some things are behind door number 2 or 3, but concluding that they are behind door number 3 is a completely ridiculous, useless and unsupported conclusion.

The only reason to say this is because supernatural sounds a bit like God, which is a bit like [insert my favourite god]. Turning up to an atheist forum with no understanding of logic, and no desire to learn about it, is like me turning up at a bible study knowing nothing about Jesus and ignoring all mention of him.

(March 3, 2016 at 6:52 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 3, 2016 at 6:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, the distinction is that you want to make the unknown sound more mysterious than it is. You want there to be a supernatural. It doesn't mean there is.

It may be natural, it may not. Concluding that it's not, because it's currently unknown, is the argument from ignorance. 

its not that I want there to be a supernatural, I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural exists, ie there  are events that really do take place which are outside of, or in violation of natural law. life from non-life would be one such event. 

concerning the argument from ignorance, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If we have natural laws that define the way things work and something completely violates that law, this isn't just an "unknown," but according to the dictionary definition, it is something supernatural.

---

(March 3, 2016 at 6:33 am)pocaracas Wrote: Did I correct you on the definition of "supernatural"?
Or did I provide a reason for the existence of the word?

How would you define the word "supernatural?"

Maybe... just maybe... you will come to learn that life from non-life can happen through mere chemistry.
That the exact mechanism by which it has happened on this planet some 4 billion years ago hasn't been found means little in terms of the very real possibility that it can be found.

Supernatural.... I define that as I define magic.
Superman would be supernatural.... the Flash, too... Batman, on the other hand, seems natural
Harry Potter is obviously supernatural, much like the Jedi, but unlike warp engines, which are just sci-fi.
Superman and flash and all those magical beings cannot be because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Do try to keep in mind that just because we humans haven't managed to explain a particular phenomenon, it doesn't mean that this phenomenon is magical.... it just means that its mechanism eludes us, for the time being.
There are even some phenomena that will likely forever elude us, such as the Big Bang, or the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis happened on this planet... but that does not mean, in the slightest, that those phenomena happened due to some magical force.

I imagine this guy has been surrounded all his life by people who take for granted that "the supernatural" is a coherent and very existent thing, beyond question.

I haven't, and no one has demonstrated anything at all which can usefully be described this way outside of fiction.

It's up to him whether he now chooses to stick with what he is used to, or investigate whether this actually makes any sense. The problem is, if he does this, it means assessing whether his religion makes any sense also. So I do understand the reluctance, and the desire to make any argument up that will keep "the supernatural" alive.

(March 3, 2016 at 6:58 am)robvalue Wrote: This is so ridiculous. This is what he's trying to say:

"If reality doesn't fit our current models of it, which are perfect, then nature isn't what we think it is. There must be other things... supernatural things!

No. That is unbelievably ignorant.

If reality doesn't fit our current models, our models are wrong.

You haven't addressed the critical issue here. That is, we have a dictionary definition that I am using.

If something violates natural law, that is the dictionary definition of supernatural - not mine, it is the dictionary's, don't get mad at me.

Our current models are not "natural law". They are "models of natural law". Can you not understand the difference?

Do you have a reference book about the universe stating each and every natural law exactly and beyond question?

(March 3, 2016 at 7:25 am)AJW333 Wrote: If something violates natural law, that is the dictionary definition of supernatural - not mine, it is the dictionary's, don't get mad at me.

I'm losing patience pretty quickly. So this is the last thing I'm posting here.

You fucking don't know what happened. Nobody does. So kindly shove your supernatural where the sun doesn't shine, since it doesn't matter. It's only you filling the gap of the unknown with what seems convenient to you.

As far as your supernatural goes, it's fiction. People considering the supernatural to be real, are usually found among ghost hunters and other highly enlightened persons. Such as the staunchly religious ones, who smell god in everything going above their heads.