(June 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 8:06 am)robvalue Wrote: So this is the big question: what practical use is labelling an event "supernatural" rather than simply "unexplained"?

The significance, meaning or the conclusions we could draw from a supernatural event. Simply putting an event into the "unexplained" column sheds all significance and meaning.

And yet it is the most reasonable thing to do. The other choice is to impose your own interpretation onto something and I can guarantee you will be wrong if you do that.

(June 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 8:06 am)robvalue Wrote: So this is the big question: what practical use is labelling an event "supernatural" rather than simply "unexplained"?

The significance, meaning or the conclusions we could draw from a supernatural event. Simply putting an event into the "unexplained" column sheds all significance and meaning.

On the upside, "unexplained" is honest. Is the significance and meaning you draw from relabeling our ignorance worth more to you than simple honesty?

What conclusions can you draw? Since you have arbitrarily decided something is in the "supernatural" part of the "unexplained" category, because it's really really really hard to explain according to you, your conclusions are simply assumed. There is no scientific way of distinguishing between "unexplained" and "supernatural". All that can be done is blind, pointless speculation about the lack of remaining "natural explanations" which may account for it. Since we have no experience of these possible unexplained natural explanations, we cannot produce a sensible probability. One era's supernatural magic is another era's common knowledge.

This answer shows that the only reason to call something supernatural is to try and impose significance, which is exactly my point. "Unexplained" is only meant to have the significance of what it means.

As I keep saying: a person labels something "supernatural". They can only ever be proved wrong, following this. It can never be demonstrated to be correct. It's worthless.

It's worse than worthless, actually. It's declaring that you have given up looking for natural explanations. It's a barrier to progress.

(June 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 8:06 am)robvalue Wrote: So this is the big question: what practical use is labelling an event "supernatural" rather than simply "unexplained"?

The significance, meaning or the conclusions we could draw from a supernatural event. Simply putting an event into the "unexplained" column sheds all significance and meaning.

Which begs the obvious question: is the meaning or significance you could derive from that label actually meaningful or significant, if the label has been applied simply as a cover for ignorance, or in the face of the unknown, without any demonstrability at all?

See, that's the thing about significance and meaning: they're as much dependent on the why as they are on the what. A highly significant conclusion proposed without any justification is hardly significant or meaningful, isn't it? An earth shattering breakthrough simply dreamed up out of nothing can hardly be said to provide meaningful ramifications, can it?

(May 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

Really? You believe that? At one time people believed that natural causes were supernatural. As simple as volcanoes erupting, locusts, lunar or solar eclipses, hurricanes, pestilence, mental disorders, lightning, thunder. And on and on. 
And you have the nerve to think that what you don't understand today has to be supernatural?
Grow up . Stop living in the Middle Ages.

I answered the question "what practical use" is there in distinguishing between a supernatural event or an unexplained event. I said nothing about imposing any personal interpretation or significance on an event nor did I say by simply labeling an event supernatural it is somehow endowed with significance.

As I have said many times in this thread, arguing whether an event should be put in the supernatural or unexplained columns is a probabilistic argument.

While I in no way want to start the NT/evidence discussion up again, it is useful to have an example of what I mean. 

If all we know was a man crippled from birth started walking (and that is all we can discover) we are rationally required to put it into the unexplained column.

If on the other hand the context and timing indicate the event has significance beyond the actual walking part, then we are rational to investigate what that might be in judging which column the event should be placed. So, in Matt 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk. He told the man to get up an walk and the man did. There was plenty of context to give this even far more significance than just a man walking away.

For those that have not been with us for the last 15 pages, here is a response I made to Jörmungandr (on page 5) that might clarify my position:

Quote:Excellent point! When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (cueing as you put it)
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

Now, you ask about non-Jesus miracles. I don't think the above list applies to miracle today so we need to switch to why God might intervene with a miracle. I think that God, with his foreknowledge of what we will freely do, has already factored in our prayers in deciding what the best intervention (if any) is for us and the terribly complex "butterfly effect" any intervention might bring to the rest of the future and will do what is best in the long run. In this perspective, timing or "cueing" is meaningless because that purpose (which may have had significance in a "Jesus miracle") has nothing to do with the actual goal. In fact, invoking it should be a red flag.

To further explain that thought, I think the Bible teaches us to ask in faith that God can grant our petition but always with the attitude of "not my will, but your will be done" (Lord's Prayer). Even with the right attitude, God does not promise to answer our every request. The only promise given is illustrated in Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God..."

You are entirely correct that these factors reduce my assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle. That is why I said that today, miracle claims are overstated and I don't use them to argue the existence of miracles specifically or God in general. But in general, I have reason to believe they happen and should be asked for with the right attitude understanding that the answer could very well be "no".

(June 1, 2016 at 5:40 pm)SilverFrog Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

Really? You believe that? At one time people believed that natural causes were supernatural. As simple as volcanoes erupting, locusts, lunar or solar eclipses, hurricanes, pestilence, mental disorders, lightning, thunder. And on and on. 
And you have the nerve to think that what you don't understand today has to be supernatural?
Grow up . Stop living in the Middle Ages.

Yes, I believe what I wrote.

Incorrect attribution of a supernatural event does nothing to prove or disprove the possibility.

I have the nerve to believe that supernatural causes may effect events in our world. I never even suggested attributing a supernatural cause to something because I didn't otherwise know or understand the cause. 

Since you are pretty new and I have no experience with your posts yet, I'm not quite sure if you want to engage on a topic or you are happy with your condescending drive-bys. Which is it?

(June 1, 2016 at 9:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: I answered the question "what practical use" is there in distinguishing between a supernatural event or an unexplained event. I said nothing about imposing any personal interpretation or significance on an event nor did I say by simply labeling an event supernatural it is somehow endowed with significance.

As I have said many times in this thread, arguing whether an event should be put in the supernatural or unexplained columns is a probabilistic argument.

While I in no way want to start the NT/evidence discussion up again, it is useful to have an example of what I mean. 

If all we know was a man crippled from birth started walking (and that is all we can discover) we are rationally required to put it into the unexplained column.

If on the other hand the context and timing indicate the event has significance beyond the actual walking part, then we are rational to investigate what that might be in judging which column the event should be placed. So, in Matt 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk. He told the man to get up an walk and the man did. There was plenty of context to give this even far more significance than just a man walking away.

But, see, without a mechanism that can be detected and investigated, there's no reason to add any special significance to a given theological explanation. Taking your Jesus example, yes, it could be that the contextual interpretation you have for that event is what really happened, but it also could be that the specific phonemes, spoken in that specific place, with a specific celestial alignment above (at any resolution you happen to want) caused our understanding of biology to change in that specific instant. It could also be that Jesus was a theologically motivated time traveler who deployed advanced technology under the guise of a miracle because it just so happens that in the future the time traveler owns a major stake in a bible printing company.

Let's just ignore the validity of the account and presume, for the hypothetical, that this is an event that we witnessed together: given that you have no way of detecting or demonstrating a divine source for the event (and cannot, I hasten to add, even show that such a thing is possible) how can you assign a higher probability to your miraculous explanation, over and above the time travel or unknown quirk of the universe explanations?

Merely because, contextually, an explanation is asserted or hinted at at the time, does not mean that this explanation is any more likely. Every magician who has ever performed relies on this being the case. Hell, con men rely on the same thing: implying a cause is not the same thing as there actually being that cause.

Right. Maybe humans can heal people, and it's just extremely rarely that anyone figures out how to harness the power. If that's the case, is it supernatural?

Maybe in a thousand years everyone will be doing it.

I mean, if you already believe Jesus himself is supernatural, then there's no discussion anyway. But if it's just his acts that are supernatural, supposedly, then you're just guessing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We can't even examine any evidence directly, all we have are stories. Even if we believe the stories, it doesn't tell us how he did what he did. He doesn't get to credit himself just because he did something that can't be explained.

The magician doesn't get to say he actually teleported a card because you can't figure out how he moved it from one hand to the other.

Hey, after all, there's this guy at work who thinks honey is the cure to everything.