(July 3, 2018 at 2:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: ...Ignoring the question begging nature of that whole paragraph, I am aware of no progress on the mind/body dualism question...

I think the discovery that the mind is what the brain does sort of put an end to that question.

Quote:...Ignoring the question begging nature of that whole paragraph, I am aware of no progress on the mind/body dualism question...

Then your not aware of much

(July 3, 2018 at 11:54 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 9:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: No one is maintaining that the experiences aren't real. They're real experiences. It's their nature that we're disputing. Because religious experiences differ depending on culture, different people interpret similar experiences differently, and the experiences can be simulated with drugs and/or electronics, religious experiences fit the profile of a neuro-cultural phenomenon. Evidence that there is more going on would be advisable before concluding that there's more going on. That is, the null hypothesis has not been defeated.

This is the part I am challenging. If you take the step of saying that the person's experiences are not a result of the supernatural, that is a simple assertion. Any attempt to justify that assertion becomes question begging. Your attempt to introduce a null hypothesis is simply an attempt to sneak in the assertion; since the only way to know of a person's inner experience is to ask them, the concept does not apply. 

If you are able to overcome the null hypothesis (that neuro-cultural factors that we have at least a basic understanding of are sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and incidentally, explain it better), by all means do so. If not, I should hardly take it on faith that you're on to something rather than motivated to insert the Christian God wherever you think it will fit.

(July 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus should be required reading for atheists and agnostics.  It would be wasted on religitards like Stevie.

I just really despise the Bayes Theorem shit but that's probably just me and math.

You also seem to really like a bad argument from silence, and pretty much anything of a number of other bad mythicists positions.... so go figure.

(July 3, 2018 at 3:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 12:27 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also it is not energy to separate supernatural from natural to say that they are separate categories or that they are different. A category error is About imposing a category incorrectly.  

@Lady The question still remains about what you are indicating is a category error

I’m a stay at home mom with 4 year old and 18 month old boys; give me a break, will ya? 😛  I’m gettin’ to it, just as soon as I have a few minutes to be alone with my brain. 😉

Kudos for being a hard working Mom as well!

I try to never use "supernatural" in serious conversation, because I think it's so elastic as to be meaningless. There's no definition that is used consistently enough to have any utility. I find "beyond our current understanding" to be more than sufficient in most situations.

Of course, particular definitions could be given for any given dialogue. I have no problem with that, if they make sense.

I note the general circular and arbitrary nature (haha) of it all. Examples based on previous conversations:

"Supernatural means not natural, and natural means not supernatural."

"Natural means obeying the laws of nature." [Unless you're going to tell me what those laws are, this statement is a pointless tautology, since everything obeys the laws pertaining to itself. There's then usually equivocation between our current scientific models and actual physical laws.]

Quote:You also seem to really like a bad argument from silence, and pretty much anything of a number of other bad mythicists positions.... so go figure.

You also seem to blanket dismiss the gaps in your cult as well as a number of other bad Historicist positions ....so go figure .

(July 4, 2018 at 1:36 am)robvalue Wrote: I note the general circular and arbitrary nature (haha) of it all. Examples based on previous conversations:

"Supernatural means not natural, and natural means not supernatural."

"Natural means obeying the laws of nature." [Unless you're going to tell me what those laws are, this statement is a pointless tautology, since everything obeys the laws pertaining to itself. There's then usually equivocation between our current scientific models and actual physical laws.]

The worst is the argument that natural explanations cannot be used to explain supernatural phenomenon because it's supernatural. This not only assumes that supernatural exists but also means that it cannot ever be determined to exist. Because how else would we be able to determine that anything supernatural exists except by natural means?

This then shows us that 'supernatural' is a deliberate blanket to avoid having to explain things or argue about plausibility.

For example, if I was adamant about the smoke breathing dragon in my garage and you started explaining to me how such a creature could not even exist I could just respond with, well, it's a supernatural dragon. You then just have to accept it on faith because I told you so. Yet if my neighbour claimed that there wasn't a smoke breathing dragon in my garage but it was a supernatural smoke monster instead, neither of us would have a way of determining which one was correct and both would be happy in their belief.

Which is basically the whole point of the word 'supernatural'. So believers can believe any old shit they want.

I heard a different definition one time which was interesting. It was intended as a way to model the way it is actually (often) used, in relation to reality:

The supernatural is that which only exists subjectively in personal experiences.

(July 4, 2018 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I heard a different definition one time which was interesting. It was intended as a way to model the way it is actually (often) used, in relation to reality:

The supernatural is that which only exists subjectively in personal experiences.

Interesting definition but not one any religionist will go for I suspect. They need supernatural to mean 'real', yet not real enough that it's natural and can be explained.

But hypothetically speaking, imagine the supernatural did exist. There must then be a distinction between what is natural and what is supernatural. Where would one end and the other begin and what would be the distinguishing feature of either? Would there be a mix of both natural and supernatural? There has to be because brains are natural and can control our bodies yet religionists claim that brains can detect the supernatural. Yet religionists aren't interested in these type of questions. This is because they would discover that the supernatural does not exist.