You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[SteveII]

In your rush to the typical "prove it", you are missing the point. It is possible to logically conclude that event x was likely not caused by natural events (and conversely). The only way around this conclusion is to assign a zero probability that supernatural causes exist. This is a claim to knowledge and therefore would require justification and NOT simply shifting the burden of proof to me.

[little_monkey]

In your rush to the typical "prove it", you are missing the point. It is possible to logically conclude that event x was likely not caused by natural events (and conversely). The only way around this conclusion is to assign a zero probability that supernatural causes exist. This is a claim to knowledge and therefore would require justification and NOT simply shifting the burden of proof to me.

You can have any theory you want but if you can't differentiate your theory from a crackpot theory, then you HAVE a crackpot theory.

[Cyberman]

And until supernatural agency is shown to exist and to operate in the ways ascribed to it, those variables actually remain at zero.

That would be circular logic. We are looking for evidence of supernatural agency. You are saying we cannot ascribe even a probability until what?...we have evidence that supernatural agency exists?

Actually it's astonishingly linear. We start with the system as is, that we can investigate. Only once we have applied the Holmesian Maxim and eliminated the impossible can we even begin to entertain ideas of supernatural agency. Now its up to you as the proponent of such agency to establish and support your case. I'm giving you the floor and an open mic. What have you got for us?

[robvalue]

I went through all this recently. I'll post the video again.

It's an equivocation between our scientific theories which model the "laws of nature" and the actual "laws of nature". Equivocations are bad.

Angry Atheist to the rescue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u5-Bg2ENQ

[SteveII]

That would be circular logic. We are looking for evidence of supernatural agency. You are saying we cannot ascribe even a probability until what?...we have evidence that supernatural agency exists?

Actually it's astonishingly linear. We start with the system as is, that we can investigate. Only once we have applied the Holmesian Maxim and eliminated the impossible can we even begin to entertain ideas of supernatural agency. Now its up to you as the proponent of such agency to establish and support your case. I'm giving you the floor and an open mic. What have you got for us?

I agree. If we can find a natural cause for an event, that should be our default position. However, as the probability of natural causes goes down, you still have the evidence of the event which necessarily increases the probability of the event having a supernatural cause.

[Drich]

You're welcome Drich.

Teacher: So y = r cubed over 3. And if you determine the rate of change in this curve correctly, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Teacher: Don't you get it, Bart? Derivative dy = 3 r squared dr over 3, or r squared dr, or r dr r.

dy/dr = r2 into dy = rdrr...

[SteveII]

I went through all this recently. I'll post the video again.

It's an equivocation between our scientific theories which model the "laws of nature" and the actual "laws of nature". Equivocations are bad.

Angry Atheist to the rescue:

I agree, we should not rule out any event a priori because our "laws of nature" are more descriptive than prescriptive. However, that does not rule out supernatural causes. Science cannot tell us if supernatural causes exist or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither can you, apparently.

[SteveII]

Neither can you, apparently.

So we agree that perhaps evidence can?

[KevinM1]