Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[JackRussell]

You gotta believe.

And i will burn coz' I don't.

So fair.

[SteveII]

But the fact remains that the supernatural either exists or does not and science has no standing in making that determination.

I agree that it exists or it doesn't. And no matter how much we choose to believe or not believe in it, it makes it no more or less real.
But, if we have no way of testing for the supernatural, how can we even determine that it exists in the first place?
If 'Event A' happens, and it's claimed to be supernatural, there must be something about that event that gives you reason to believe that it is "supernatural" and not just "unknown". Supernatural is not synonymous with unknown, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing.

Okay, but context is important. I said earlier that when discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the claim might include:

1. Timing
2. Illustrating a particular point. 
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.

So let's stick with the example I have above. So as not to get sidetracked on a debate about the NT, let's just say for the sake of this discussion you were present and you knew the man to be paralyzed. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Present in the series of events is 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. That's a lot of context. 

Now, using Bayes Theorem and especially Bayesian Inference, we can examine the probability of seeing the paralyzed man walk given the overall context. 



R = A Miracle Having Happened (the man walks due to supernatural causes)
B = Background information (the supernatural exists)
E = Evidence (paralyzed man walking in the context of being commanded to for the reasons mentioned)

The way you read this is 
Pr="The probability of" 
| = "given"
& = "and"

So the probability of a Miracle Having Happened given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of a Miracle Having NOT Happened  given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists
=
The probability of Miracle Having Happened given The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of Miracle Having NOT Happened given the The Supernatural Exists
X 
The probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle NOT Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists

Notice this last part of the equation. It is the probability of seeing the evidence given no miracle, no supernatural. A low value here significantly increase the overall probability of a miracle having happened.

[JackRussell]

yeah, premises don't matter.

[robvalue]

I guess the other thing is, "Stuff I believe in that I'm not even going to try and give proper evidence for".

[SteveII]

If we can only observe the effects of the supernatural and can never investigate the supernatural itself, then any supernatural cause is indistinguishable from any other; or from no supernatural cause at all.

That's the problem. People generally define these things so that they can't be disproven; but by doing so, they can't be proven either.

The only sensible definition, I think, is things going on outside of our self-enclosed environment (assuming there is an outside). Otherwise, it's just "unknown" or gibberish.

You have erected a straw man there Rob. No one claims supernatural events just happen and we are left wondering. For example, why in the world shouldn't I attribute the supernatural healing to God in the above example?

[JackRussell]

I guess the other thing is, "Stuff I believe in that I'm not even going to try and give proper evidence for".

Yep, the prior probability is incorrectly assigned. 

Funnily Richard Carrier has been accused of the same thing evaluating the Jesus mythicist position.

Maths isn't a magical solution for history, from any perspective. Interesting nonetheless.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Just chuckling like mad at the argument ...

A:You have no evidence
S: Looks! Maths! Scary symbols! Probability and Bayes theorem you'll have accept me on! Not at all garbage-in-garbage-out!
A: You have no evidence.
S: You aren't accomplished as me at logic. You refuse to listen. You aren't critical thinkers. <swans off>
A: None of which changes the fact that ... you have no evidence.

[GrandizerII]

You didn't really address what I actually said. You can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Doesn't the fact that you can observe them naturally contradict the definition you just provided here? If not, then I haven't seen the argument yet as to why we can't test this force then. Just because it may be beyond scientific understanding doesn't mean it's beyond scientific testing. It is possible to demonstrate scientifically that something exists without understanding scientifically how it works.

You can observe the effects in the natural world. The definition clearly states "attributed to". That is another way of saying "cause".

Therefore, you can test the effects in the natural world as well.

Regarding your last two sentences, you are not getting it. It is not "beyond scientific understanding", it is another category where science does not nor ever will apply. You final sentence is so wrong because you are still confused on the definition of the word. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definitions and what those definitions entail.

But you just admitted that the effects can be observed in the natural world. Why are you so confused?

You did not connect your first sentence to your second with anything resembling a reason. What you did was infer that God's purpose was to heal people and so we should also see this other type of "healing" - regrowing limbs. But your inference is wrong. God's purpose is not to heal people for the sake of healing people. These are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events, are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) significance. Additionally, God could extend someone's life for a reason that might not be apparent for a hundred years (the butterfly effect). Under this understanding of "healing miracles", it is definitely not "pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen."

I don't think it matters much what the purpose of these miracles are. If you accept that healing miracles still occur to this day (for whatever purposes), then why is it we never hear about amputees growing limbs spontaneously? Instead, it's always miracles that involve healing via suggestibility (or disorders/illnesses that we aren't sure they ever had in the first place or similar such things). We never visibly see something really remarkable that we may as well start considering the existence of the supernatural. It's pretty clear to me why that is.

Bayesian reasoning is probabilistic FTR. It's not meant to yield 100% deductive arguments.

---

I agree that it exists or it doesn't. And no matter how much we choose to believe or not believe in it, it makes it no more or less real.
But, if we have no way of testing for the supernatural, how can we even determine that it exists in the first place?
If 'Event A' happens, and it's claimed to be supernatural, there must be something about that event that gives you reason to believe that it is "supernatural" and not just "unknown". Supernatural is not synonymous with unknown, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing.

Okay, but context is important. I said earlier that when discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the claim might include:

1. Timing
2. Illustrating a particular point. 
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.

So let's stick with the example I have above. So as not to get sidetracked on a debate about the NT, let's just say for the sake of this discussion you were present and you knew the man to be paralyzed. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Present in the series of events is 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. That's a lot of context. 

Now, using Bayes Theorem and especially Bayesian Inference, we can examine the probability of seeing the paralyzed man walk given the overall context. 



R = A Miracle Having Happened (the man walks due to supernatural causes)
B = Background information (the supernatural exists)
E = Evidence (paralyzed man walking in the context of being commanded to for the reasons mentioned)

The way you read this is 
Pr="The probability of" 
| = "given"
& = "and"

So the probability of a Miracle Having Happened given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of a Miracle Having NOT Happened  given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists
=
The probability of Miracle Having Happened given The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of Miracle Having NOT Happened given the The Supernatural Exists
X 
The probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle NOT Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists

Notice this last part of the equation. It is the probability of seeing the evidence given no miracle, no supernatural. A low value here significantly increase the overall probability of a miracle having happened.

Uh, oh. Big problem here. We don't observe a world in which these events you speak of actually occur. These are all contained in the Bible, but not necessarily in the real world. So your incredibly naive Bayesian reasoning here can be dismissed.

Your reasoning also suggests that people like Benny Hinn are most likely healing people ... and due to supernatural causes.

[KevinM1]

I'm just chuckling at how simplistic this all is.

If I think Rob has a dog, but find no evidence of a dog, that doesn't mean he must therefore have a cat.  Several other possibilities exist, including him actually owning a dog and being particular about hiding evidence for it.

So, if a natural event doesn't have a yet known natural cause, that doesn't mean the cause must be the supernatural.  Several other possibilities exist, including a yet undiscovered natural cause for that event.

There's no need for equations or anything, just a basic grasp of what a very obvious fallacy is.

[SteveII]

No problem with your first sentence. Your last sentence is incorrect. You can ONLY observe the effect. You cannot observe the supernatural. Why is this concept so hard?

Observing the effect *is* observing the cause of that effect. My examples show how this happens.

No it is not. You were describing natural things we can't examine (yet?) but are still obeying natural laws and are squarely in the category of natural things.  In my example, observing the paralyzed man walking away (the effect) did not come close to observing God (the cause) which is squarely in the category of supernatural things. 

The difference is in the CAUSE. There are natural causes and supernatural causes. Two categories of causes. Both result in effects in the natural world--otherwise we would not be aware of them. How do we distinguish? There are some effects that cannot be caused by naturalistic causes. Need an example to discuss, here is one. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Let's just say you were there and this happened (and you knew the man to be paralyzed). Are you going to say we can only see the effect, so there is no difference between a naturalistic explanation and a supernatural explanation? Regardless, the scenario illustrates the concept of the difference between categories of causes and the visible effect--even if you don't believe it to be true.

If this story is valid, it would be a detection of the supernatural. And we could use such detections to build up a pattern of behavior of the supernatural, which is how science works.

All you would have are observations and inferences. Key ingredients to the process of science are predictions, testing and repeatability. There is no pattern to discern. Listen, if you want to call this cataloging of information 'science', knock yourself out. But you are not describing any version of the scientific method. 

yes, i am going to say there is no difference between the evidence for a supernatural and the evidence for a natural. They are BOTH based on observations of effects and the analysis of what could be the cause of those effects. Any patterns are discerned by hypothesis formation and testing.

In every instance, examining a natural effect will not give you information on the supernatural cause. You are attempting to cross the barrier or blur the lines between science and metaphysics. 

The only way science would NOT be applicable is if the effects are indistinguishable from randomness, in which case, the default is simple randomness.

Or...if the definition of supernatural says so:

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

Notice it did not say "beyond understanding". We can, using philosophy (including metaphysical concepts) infer quite a bit to better understand the supernatural. In fact, there is a whole category of philosophy dedicated to that: philosophy of religion.