Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[The Grand Nudger]

I've noticed that bourbon increases my confidence in a great many propositions. I guess that makes liquor evidence for those propositions.

Ridiculous definitions and a short list of irrational reasons that people might believe something are only evidence of incompetence.

[possibletarian]

So I think that for many reasonable people, there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Among this evidence is

This should be good...

1) the obvious fact that people know very little of the world.

Okay we have many things to discover.. therefore lets see what you conclusion is and if it can be justified.

2) The fact that science seems to have no clue as to how we should approach some really big questions about reality -- e.g. what is consciousness? and why is there something rather than nothing?

What is not knowing the answer to something evidence of? 'We 'don't know' is the answer and gives us ..gives us absolutely no reason to invent a non~material world. It also raises other questions like have you ever known a consciousness apart from a physical ? , Is nothing even possible ?

(And I know some people are attached to their theories and don't agree that these are mysteries.

For good though out reasons i would say, don't forget even science used to believe much in a creation (of types) and have moved away from it because that is not where experience and evidence leads them.

But lots of scientists agree with me about consciousness.

agree about what bit ?, that they don't know what it is, sure , but again you claiming this is evidence for a non~material world which they likely would not agree with.

And in Krauss's book about why there is something rather than nothing he actually admits in the last chapter that he doesn't know.)

okay let's see where you go with this perfectly reasonable conclusion by Krauss

So if a person has a model which is skeptical of complete naturalism, and open to the idea that the supernatural is real, then these mysteries would be evidence (not proof) of the supernatural.

Even if you are sceptical of naturalism how would these lead to evidence, 'we don't knows' are just that.

Obviously to people whose models hold solely to naturalism, who have faith that all unanswered questions will have natural solutions, the lack of answers in those problems *doesn't* constitute evidence for the supernatural. They interpret the lack differently.

An unanswered question is not evidence for anything why on earth add the non~material ?

So far we haven't seen evidence for anything, simply unanswered questions, lets see where we go now.

Then there are the many many people in history who say they have had supernatural experiences. Some are fakers, some are obviously mistaken. But if we declare tout court that they are all wrong, we are doing so because a priori we have declared that only naturalism is possible. We don't know what those people experienced,

*bold mine* exactly, we don't know, so we don't need to add any inference of out of mind or non material worlds, we do know however that it was experienced through an organ that we can show is prone to delusion, can have artificially altered states, and that the experience changes according to religion, drugs, place of birth etc. This would indicate a there's much more likely to be influence from the material world. Again why conclude or consider it evidence for a non~material world ?

we haven't had the same experience. Again, for anyone whose model allows the supernatural or skepticism about pure naturalism, their testimony is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. I know that a lot of people -- especially on this forum -- have no qualms about calling anyone who disagrees with them a liar or an idiot. But I think that is having too much faith in our own judgment about things we can't know for sure.

*bold mine* It's not about faith in our own judgements it's about what we can reasonably conclude from the evidence available, sure if we are taught that such things are other worldly, we are likely to accept that, that does not mean it's evidence or proof for anything though. someone who does not have that prior belief asks for reasons to infer a non~material explanation.

So I think there is lots of evidence for the supernatural, if a person hasn't ruled it out already. If you have ruled it out already, there is no evidence.

Science does not rule anything out, it asks for evidence that does not rely on a prior belief (naturalism is not science) , also if you sincerely believe there is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, why not just say you believe ? You have become something of an expert in not saying anything at all substantial, of not committing yourself to anything , even things you say there is plenty of evidence for. It's like you have re-defined none committal as open mindness , then simply claimed everyone else should be like you.

Anyway, people are extremely limited, it's the height of arrogance to imagine that we can understand more than a tiny fraction of the world, and over-confident conclusions about things we don't really know are just self-promoting fantasies.

If we don't know, yet claim without evidence a non material world to is a fantasy !
Arrogance is not saying 'We don't know' it's saying without proof or reasonable evidence that we do

OK, I'll drop it now.

Okay dokey

[polymath257]

By what method could we do this? How could you rule out a cause you haven’t learned about yet?

Granted, I think that the people opposing me on this thread don't agree that the statement "all questions are answerable by science" can be falsified. 

They assume a priori that the only things there are in the world are things that science can analyze. As we've seen, they deny outright the existence of anything else. For them, "it can be analyzed by science" is the equivalent of "it exists." 

And that is simply a false characterization of what people are saying.

For example, science has no direct say on morality or aesthetics. It can help *inform* those topics, but it cannot conclude what is moral or beautiful.

Now, my view is that this is because morality aesthetics are a matter of *opinion* and not a matter of *fact*: they are subjective and human-based and not objective things.

It's a version of Berkeley, I guess. Esse est percipi gets a little update. 

To them, their statement is not falsifiable. Therefore it's not science.

Definitions are never falsifiable. They are either useful for further study or they are not.

But I've already addressed this. To say that by definition everything has a natural explanation, even if we don't know what the explanation will be or could be, is just begging the question. It's assuming something that can't be proved.

Please define what the term  'natural' means and these issues may get resolved. What does it mean to be a 'natural explanation'?

I'm fine with it, as I say. It may well be true that there is nothing supernatural. Given my own limited experience, I suspect there's no such thing as the supernatural. (Even God, if it existed, would be natural, in the sense that it is and acts only according to its nature.) But as I say the universe is big and science is set up to find certain things and not others. If supernatural stuff were happening all around us, many people would deny it, given their metaphysical commitment against it. My interlocutors on this thread prove that. So the degree to which people are adamant about the non-existence of the supernatural, and offended that someone else might say "maybe," they are committed to an unprovable belief, and lack skepticism. 

(It's funny how the word "skepticism" has changed. It used to mean doubtful and demanding more proof. Now it seems to mean "completely certain about the non-existence of certain things.")

Well, I think that if you resolve what you mean by the following terms, things will get easier to analyze:

natural
exists
explanation

I know what my definitions are for these ideas. What are yours?

[The Grand Nudger]

My yard is big, so big that science can't possibly demonstrate that there are no unicorns in it - if science were set up to be able to detect unicorns, which it isn't.

A-unicornists would deny that there were unicorns in my yard even if the unicorns were dancing around them widdershins. They lack skepticism and are committed to unproven beliefs.

[Succubus#2]

I think we've about covered it. So I'll sum up. Whether anyone wants it or not.

 ...And since science is carried out by humans (despite its near divine status on this forum) if people can't comprehend it then science can't answer it.

...Unless someone wanted to define "natural" as "that which humans can know through empirical means." I think that would be a little unusual for science-type people, but not without precedent.

"Science-type people."

How very revealing.

Bel, why do you have such a hatred of science, or is it a fear of science?
I wonder is there a backstory to this or is it that science has written off your particular brand pseudo philosophy for the worthless drivel that it is.

Plato forbid you ever go down with kidney stones but when you make it to a hospital you'll embrace science right enough.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think we've about covered it. So I'll sum up. Whether anyone wants it or not.

Why would someone admit something that isn't true 

 

...And since science is carried out by humans (despite its near divine status on this forum) if people can't comprehend it then science can't answer it.

...Unless someone wanted to define "natural" as "that which humans can know through empirical means." I think that would be a little unusual for science-type people, but not without precedent.

And a heap of straw man and silliness that's corrected over and over

---

So I think that for many reasonable people, there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Among this evidence is

So such evidence exists

1) the obvious fact that people know very little of the world.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

2) The fact that science seems to have no clue as to how we should approach some really big questions about reality -- e.g. what is consciousness? and why is there something rather than nothing?

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

(And I know some people are attached to their theories and don't agree that these are mysteries.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

But lots of scientists agree with me about consciousness.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

And in Krauss's book about why there is something rather than nothing he actually admits in the last chapter that he doesn't know.)

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural ( i can just keep repeating this really )

So if a person has a model which is skeptical of complete naturalism, and open to the idea that the supernatural is real, then these mysteries would be evidence (not proof) of the supernatural.

No they will be evidence this persons model needs work 

Obviously to people whose models hold solely to naturalism, who have faith that all unanswered questions will have natural solutions, the lack of answers in those problems *doesn't* constitute evidence for the supernatural. They interpret the lack differently.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

Then there are the many many people in history who say they have had supernatural experiences. Some are fakers, some are obviously mistaken. But if we declare tout court that they are all wrong, we are doing so because a priori we have declared that only naturalism is possible. We don't know what those people experienced,

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural .And experiences don't demonstrate the supernatural 

we haven't had the same experience. Again, for anyone whose model allows the supernatural or skepticism about pure naturalism, their testimony is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. I know that a lot of people -- especially on this forum -- have no qualms about calling anyone who disagrees with them a liar or an idiot. But I think that is having too much faith in our own judgment about things we can't know for sure.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

So I think there is lots of evidence for the supernatural, if a person hasn't ruled it out already. If you have ruled it out already, there is no evidence.

You have failed to give any evidence just lots of "i don't know therefore the supernatural "

Anyway, people are extremely limited, it's the height of arrogance to imagine that we can understand more than a tiny fraction of the world, and over-confident conclusions about things we don't really know are just self-promoting fantasies.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

OK, I'll drop it now.

Do so because your awful at arguing for it 

[LadyForCamus]

I generally like Bel, but I think he’s realized he botched this one. His entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance, and he has so far been unable to make that distinction. He simply can’t.

[Belacqua]

I generally like Bel, but I think he’s realized he botched this one. His entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance, and he has so far been unable to make that distinction. He simply can’t.

I disagree with you.

To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact. 

To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption. 

If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.

[LadyForCamus]

I generally like Bel, but I think he’s realized he botched this one. His entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance, and he has so far been unable to make that distinction. He simply can’t.

I disagree with you.

To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact. 

To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption. 

If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.

Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

[Peebothuhlu]

I generally like Bel, but I think he’s realized he botched this one. His entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance, and he has so far been unable to make that distinction. He simply can’t.

I disagree with you.

To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact. 

To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption. 

If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.

Whoop!

Uhm... those two sentences don't parse Belaqua.

One is; "...Entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance,"

While the other is: "...There are things of which we are ignorant."

Now, I totally agree with you Bel that there are still a great many things about which people as a whole are ignorant of.

But that's not the point tha LadyForCamus is making/stateing.

Are we grokking along on the same page now Mate?

Cheers.

Not at work.