I call Clarke's laws. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Seriously, though. I think we are conflating to different concept here, one is if something can currently be explained naturally, and the other is if something can ever be explained naturally. Not all that long ago people would have thought cell phones where supernatural, but they most definitely are not. Likewise, there is no way to accurately determine if something we didn't currently understand was supernatural or not.
Supernatural should mean more than simply something we can't explain, it should mean something utterly impossible in the natural world. The ever-vanishing pocket of our scientific ignorance is not an appropriate place to hide unsupportable nonsense like gods and magic, as we actually do know that they violate the natural order to some extent, but the unexplained does not lend support to the unsupportable by any measure. The fact that I don't know why quantum particles have mass does NOT mean that an explanation including fairies somehow becomes more reasonable, that would be ridiculous.
Seems to me that the "supernatural" is a concept some people attempt to use to shoehorn utter nonsense into legitimate holes in our understanding. Therefore, I find it imminently more reasonable to dismiss the entire concept until someone can demonstrate it, rather than consider it more credible simply because I am not omniscient.
Seriously, though. I think we are conflating to different concept here, one is if something can currently be explained naturally, and the other is if something can ever be explained naturally. Not all that long ago people would have thought cell phones where supernatural, but they most definitely are not. Likewise, there is no way to accurately determine if something we didn't currently understand was supernatural or not.
Supernatural should mean more than simply something we can't explain, it should mean something utterly impossible in the natural world. The ever-vanishing pocket of our scientific ignorance is not an appropriate place to hide unsupportable nonsense like gods and magic, as we actually do know that they violate the natural order to some extent, but the unexplained does not lend support to the unsupportable by any measure. The fact that I don't know why quantum particles have mass does NOT mean that an explanation including fairies somehow becomes more reasonable, that would be ridiculous.
Seems to me that the "supernatural" is a concept some people attempt to use to shoehorn utter nonsense into legitimate holes in our understanding. Therefore, I find it imminently more reasonable to dismiss the entire concept until someone can demonstrate it, rather than consider it more credible simply because I am not omniscient.
I would more generally advocate that one only leave one entrance into their mind(reason), and keep the rest of it rather closed, as it is one hell of a lot easier to shovel shit in than it is to get it out.
If the evidence and reason for you to believe something isn't really any better than the reason you should believe some rural farmer from Arkansas got anally probed by interstellar visitors, then you probably shouldn't.
If the evidence and reason for you to believe something isn't really any better than the reason you should believe some rural farmer from Arkansas got anally probed by interstellar visitors, then you probably shouldn't.
