Bel the things you describe as supernatural are simply imaginary examples.

Imagine if a frog began singing opera in perfect pitch.
Your examples of supernatural only occur as imaginary thought.

Our imagination is the only place supernatural occurrences happen.

When something actually happens in the real world, there are changes that can be measured in the real world. Those changes have causes. When I vibrate my vocal chords to talk, air is moved and sound created.

Every example you could possibly give about the supernatural would all fall into the realm of imagination.

Anything that actually happens does so naturally, under natural laws within the natural physics of the whole damn universe.

The only way you get outside physical laws is through your imagination. The only way you get an all powerful god with attributes that can't be measured is with your imagination.

Stop imagining what you think your god wants you to do or think or feel. Quell the voices inside your head.

(May 26, 2020 at 8:21 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Well yes you are repeating yourself, and have been doing for many months, but you still need to answer the question.

I apologize if I'm being repetitive. Of the arguments I've made on this thread, which did I make before on this forum, in the last many months? Can you point me to the posts in which my arguments were refuted? 

If it's required of us that we answer the questions put to us, I hope you'll hold poly to the same standards. He has refused to answer a very reasonable question from me.

Quote:1) Let's say there is no explanation known for an event, why would we make the leap to a non~natural explanation, what makes you consider this as an alternative  ?

I am not saying we should leap to a supernatural explanation. I am saying that if we assume without evidence that there is a natural explanation we are begging the question. I apologize for repeating this, but your question indicates I wasn't clear before.

Quote:2) Let's say someone has an experience they can't explain,  how would this increase the credibility of a non~natural explanation ?

As I said before, if a person views the world as containing supernatural events, and finds an event which science can't explain, this would serve as evidence that science can't explain some things. 

For you, on the other hand, who has ruled out supernatural events, you would hold that there must be a natural explanation which hasn't been found yet.

Quote:3) Let's say a frog did exactly as you have suggested, (something that would have to happen in the confines of the natural world to be observed) at what point do you make the leap to a non~natural explanation, and why ?

I think I have answered this above. If no natural explanation is available, then there is a possibility of a supernatural one. Unless you have ruled this out a priori. 

If you can prove that nothing supernatural has ever happened, that would be interesting. But if you can only show that science hasn't found anything supernatural, then I have to repeat that science only allows natural explanations by definition.

Quote:If you simply say you believe that the non~natural could exist as a personal belief, then fine. But to ask others to consider it as a viable alternative requires more.

I am not asking anyone to do anything. It's clear that people are very attached to their metaphysical positions. I'm apparently the only one of the forum who isn't completely sure what the truth is.

---

(May 26, 2020 at 9:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: This reductio ad absurdism to make naturalism as explanation seem absurd doesn’t work, because you have no way of ruling out a natural explanation for a hypothetical phenomenon.

Where is the reductio ad absurdism here? I don't see it.

I agree that I have no way of ruling out a natural explanation. I also think that you have no way of ruling out a supernatural one.

---

(May 26, 2020 at 11:01 pm)brewer Wrote: for the sake of arguing.

If you'd like to offer an argument as to why I'm wrong, I promise to read it carefully. I've never seen you formulate an argument or support any of your assertions, so that would be interesting to see.

---

(May 27, 2020 at 12:08 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Stop imagining what you think your god wants you to do or think or feel. Quell the voices inside your head.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

@Belacqua

When you say “a case where no scientific explanation is possible,” you’re doing the very thing you’ve accused others in this thread of doing; assuming one of two mutually exclusive causes is impossible in order to pave a way for the other.

(May 27, 2020 at 12:50 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belacqua

When you say “a case where no scientific explanation is possible,” you’re doing the very thing you’ve accused others in this thread of doing; assuming one of two mutually exclusive causes is impossible in order to pave a way for the other.

I see what you mean. 

I think that there may be cases in which no scientific explanation is possible. You think that there are no such cases. I'm not sure how we'd settle that.

Well, that settles it. Bel cant think of any way to rule out supernatural explanations. I suppose that naturalism ought to just pack it up, lol.

(May 27, 2020 at 12:50 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belacqua

When you say “a case where no scientific explanation is possible,” you’re doing the very thing you’ve accused others in this thread of doing; assuming one of two mutually exclusive causes is impossible in order to pave a way for the other.

I think there's another way we could approach it.

Let's say there are two positions.

1) All questions are answerable by science.

and 

2) Not all questions are answerable by science.

The first statement is falsifiable. To falsify it, you just have to find a question that science can't answer. (I'm not saying it has been or will be falsified, only that it could be.)

The second is not falsifiable, because at any given time we don't know all the possible questions there are. Even if science answered all the questions there are for a million years, an unanswerable question might pop up some day.

But I think we have to limit this. Because obviously there are lots of questions that science can't answer. These fall into roughly two types: statements of value and metaphysical. 

Value statements are like "what is a good life?" or "should we give welfare to lazy people?" On this thread we've been discussing a metaphysical question: "are there questions which science can't answer?" And I think science can't answer that question. 

So we'd need to specify what issues we're wanting science to address. It would be more specific if we ask "are there any facts about nature that science can't answer?" That also isn't falsifiable, but I think we could have pretty high confidence. I think that science can answer all questions about nature, or could if we weren't on track to wipe out civilization sometime soon. 

Given my definition of "supernatural," questions about supernatural issues can't be answered by science, because they don't involve the nature of something. Science can tell us everything there is to know about the nature of frogs, but can't tell us whether sometime somewhere, in some unseen bog, a frog has done something which is wildly against its nature. Full many a frog is born to sing unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air. So that's a metaphysical question. In a general sense, "are there ever times when an object can do something that is not a part of its nature?" 

This leaves aside questions of what we'd do if we observed a singing frog. People here are determined that if they saw a frog singing opera, they'd study it with science and show that it is indeed a part of the frog's nature. But that doesn't falsify the possibility of supernatural events, because we can't rule out such events at other times and places. 

So the possibility of the supernatural remains open. Empirical research can't show it to be impossible. I don't know of any logical argument that shows it to be impossible. I see no evidence for it, but I also can't demonstrate that it never happens. It has to remain an open question. If a person has a conviction that it can happen, or a conviction that it can't happen, this is a faith.

Why do you think that science can't answer statements of value or questions about metaphysics?

Have you told the scientists, seems like they'd want to know they can't do things they've been doing for decades.

(May 27, 2020 at 5:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why do you think that science can't answer statements of value or questions about metaphysics?  

Have you told the scientists, seems like they'd want to know they can't do things they've been doing for decades.

Again and again people have said science won't have an answer for X. And again and again those people have eaten crow .

(May 27, 2020 at 12:32 am)Belacqua Wrote: I apologize if I'm being repetitive. Of the arguments I've made on this thread, which did I make before on this forum, in the last many months? Can you point me to the posts in which my arguments were refuted? 

No one claimed they had been refuted, that's the joy of making unprovable and unfalsifiable or untestable statements, in much the same way anyone can about almost any untestable fantasy.  You simply haven't provided any evidence for considering the non~natural at all.

Quote:If it's required of us that we answer the questions put to us, I hope you'll hold poly to the same standards. He has refused to answer a very reasonable question from me.

Maybe he will maybe he wont ?  No one can or will do anything if you don't reply to his or my posts either.

Quote:I am not saying we should leap to a supernatural explanation. I am saying that if we assume without evidence that there is a natural explanation we are begging the question. I apologize for repeating this, but your question indicates I wasn't clear before.

I'm not sure science assumes anything (people might) , without evidence it simply says 'we don't know'

Quote:As I said before, if a person views the world as containing supernatural events, and finds an event which science can't explain, this would serve as evidence that science can't explain some things. 

How did you reach the 'science can't explain some things' ? , perhaps you mean hasn't as yet , or may never be able to explained some things ?
That still though does not justify a leap into untestable , undefinable and unprovable non~natural explanations.

Quote:For you, on the other hand, who has ruled out supernatural events, you would hold that there must be a natural explanation which hasn't been found yet

When i don't know I use the the words 'I don't know' can you give an example of what you would see as a non~natural event (which you personally have experience of) that cannot be natural in origin, and how you reached that conclusion ?

Quote:I think I have answered this above. If no natural explanation is available, then there is a possibility of a supernatural one. Unless you have ruled this out a priori.

No one has ruled anything out, we have yet to find a reason to justify anything other than a natural explanation, why do you think a non~natural explanation could even exist to hold any answers ?   

Quote:If you can prove that nothing supernatural has ever happened, that would be interesting. But if you can only show that science hasn't found anything supernatural, then I have to repeat that science only allows natural explanations by definition.

And forgetting science why do you even think a non~natural explanation exists or is even possible (beyond simply believing it so)
If you are making a claim of a non~natural possibility, explain how you reached that conclusion (again beyond simply believing it could be so)

Quote:I am not asking anyone to do anything. It's clear that people are very attached to their metaphysical positions. I'm apparently the only one of the forum who isn't completely sure what the truth is.

Of course no one is absolutely certain what the truth is, just that no one who has claimed a non~natural world has been able to show that it is even a viable possibility, using any means.

So far as I can see you have simply been using the worlds wordiest and longest 'god of the gaps' type argument. Sure we have grasped that you are pre-disposed to see anything you (or others) cannot explain as needing a possible non~natural explanation,  But beyond some personal belief have failed to provide any reasons why others should think this way.

Quote:How did you reach the 'science can't explain some things' ?

I'm sorry you haven't been reading my posts carefully. 

I'll let it drop here.