(May 29, 2020 at 8:47 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: And it is an argument . We don't know therefore it's evidence is an argument from ignorance . He's trying to wiggle out .

No. He can't wiggle out of a position he's never claimed to hold.
He has never ever stated his position on anything, he just asks questions. He frames his beliefs as questions rather than statements of what he actually believes, which nullifies any counter argument. He can't be challenged on statements he's never made.

Bel, would you please give me a definition of the word "supernatural" that you are prepared to back up with evidence.

Over to you. You have the floor.

---

(May 29, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 29, 2020 at 9:53 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote: After countless requests you are still unable to furnish a definition of the word supernatural so why should I take anything you have to say on the subject Seriously?

I gave a definition right at the beginning.

Whose definition is that, yours?

(May 29, 2020 at 10:23 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote:

(May 29, 2020 at 8:47 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: And it is an argument . We don't know therefore it's evidence is an argument from ignorance . He's trying to wiggle out .

No. He can't wiggle out of a position he's never claimed to hold.
He has never ever stated his position  on anything, he just asks questions. He frames his beliefs as questions rather than statements of what he actually believes, which nullifies any counter argument. He can't be challenged on statements he's never made.

Bel, would you please give me a definition of the word "supernatural" that you are prepared to back up with evidence.

Over to you. You have the floor.

---

(May 29, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I gave a definition right at the beginning.

Whose definition is that, yours?

Are you being sarcastic ?

I doubt he appreciates sarcasm. But then he does appear to have legged it.
Perhaps he's off for a good think.*

*'That' was sarcasm. :o)

(May 29, 2020 at 4:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

@Peebo-Thuhlu

It occurs to me that we may be mixing up a logical argument with a conclusion drawn from evidence.

If you look all over the house and you don't find your cat, it is reasonable to conclude that your cat isn't there. He got out again. That's not an argument from ignorance, that's a conclusion you've drawn from research.

Here is the relevant part from the Wikipedia page on "Argument from Ignorance":

Quote:Evidence of absence
These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.

• One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
  

It looks as though some people are making a similar claim with the supernatural. We've looked all over and we haven't found it, therefore it doesn't exist. The trouble is that searching for the supernatural is not like searching for a cat. By definition, the supernatural is not natural, and so using naturalist methods to search for it aren't relevant. 

An argument from ignorance would be like, "No one has proved it false, therefore it's true." And I have never said that. I have only said that we can't rule it out. Likewise, "No one has proved it's true, therefore it's false." 

Some examples of logical fallacies from the Wikipedia page:

Quote:

• "There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence.
  

Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

1. If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
   
   
2. If Q were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore Q cannot be false.
   

That page quotes Carl Sagan on the fallacy:

Quote:the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa.

Since I am not claiming to know either way, I'm not committing this fallacy. I'm only saying that an absence of evidence (of the kind people here like) is not evidence of absence. 

I'm saying that neither logical arguments nor accumulated empirical evidence allow us any stronger conclusion than "It doesn't look like it, but I don't know."

Those people who confidently announce that the supernatural doesn't exist are committing this fallacy.

At work.

Well..... yeah, what you've posted is all quite good Belaqua.

The one glitch so far is that you have not posted/posited "What Supernatural is."

Just posting 'Singing' and 'Frog' then smooshing the concepts togethet doesn't actually get you to a definition.

On the one hand it's (Possibly) because singing and frogs would seem to be quitre natural.

Yeah... finding them 'Together', as it were, would be 'Different' possibly even strange. But using this as your example? *Shakes head*

Antyways... be well Bel.

Cheers.

(May 30, 2020 at 3:53 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Well..... yeah, what you've posted is all quite good Belaqua.

The one glitch so far is that you have not posted/posited "What Supernatural is."

Just posting 'Singing' and 'Frog' then smooshing the concepts togethet doesn't actually get you to a definition.

On the one hand it's (Possibly) because singing and frogs would seem to be quitre natural.

Yeah... finding them 'Together', as it were, would be 'Different' possibly even strange.  But using this as your example?  *Shakes head*

Antyways... be well Bel.

Cheers.

No, I have been clear in my definition.

A supernatural event is when something does an act which is not possible for its nature. The singing frog was an example.

The nature of the thing is what it is and does. All things are limited. If a thing does something which is over and above its nature, that's supernatural. 

If it turned out that in fact frogs can sing soprano and bass in Italian simultaneously, then it is in their nature and isn't supernatural. If they can't, then it's supernatural. I've been clear about this all along. 

Some people want to make an argument from ignorance and say that if anything occurs, it MUST be natural. Because they don't know how it could be otherwise. But they can't prove it.

If the nature of a thing is what a thing does, and the thing is singing, it's in that things nature to sing.

The Some People™ making the argument that anything that happens must be natural, is you. It's proven as a necessary consequence of the definition you've decided to give. The only things that could be supernatural, by your definition, are things that nothing does, which no one observes.

At work.

Uhm..... yeah.

Your definition doesn't actually seem to define the thing in question adequately.

Nor does your example adequately illuminate the concept.

So... other than possible singing frogs, do you have a better example of something supernatural? Or might you have a better attempt at the definition?

Cheers Bel.

A better crack at defining the supernatural probably starts with an acknowledgement of what our supernatural beliefs actually are. This won't help Bel position himself for the next scripted complaint, so it's unlikely to happen.

(May 30, 2020 at 4:27 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

Uhm..... yeah.

Your definition doesn't actually seem to define  the thing in question adequately.

Nor does your example adequately illuminate the concept.

So... other than possible singing frogs, do you have a better example of something supernatural? Or might you have a better attempt at the definition?

Cheers Bel.

No, it does define the concept just fine. Have you considered that the lack of clarity may be at your end?

Anyway, I think the best argument against the definition I've been using is pretty obvious. People haven't come up with it yet because they're too busy chanting their metaphysical beliefs "it can't happen it can't happen."

If something did an act which is completely against its nature, that would be supernatural only if the action were self-originated. That is, frogs can't sing Italian duets, so such an action would be supernatural. 

If we observed such an action, however, the cause in fact might be outside of the frog. That is, the frog is being manipulated puppet-wise by an unseen agent. In that case it's all natural. It is in the nature of a frog to be manipulable by more powerful agents. It is in the nature of such agents to manipulate things. 

That's why many Christians say that God is natural. Because God only is and does the things that it is in his nature to do. If it is in the nature of God to manipulate objects into doing things that they can't do on their own, then singing frogs would be entirely the result of natural processes.