(May 5, 2016 at 8:54 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't know what the fuck "supernatural" is meant to be either.
We arbitrarily label certain things "natural". Scientifically, we label everything we observe that way. Informally we may distinguish between natural and "man made". Either way, it's just labels.
I know, I know... supernatural breaks "the laws of nature". I've been through all this before. It's an equivocation fallacy between our scientific models and any actual laws that exist.
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of being dishonest...
http://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ
Why would you define supernatural as "breaks the laws of nature". There is no breaking. A supernatural cause having an effect on the natural world is perfectly logical. What exactly is the "dishonesty" you have detected? All i'm seeing is a discussion on the assertion that God is not a coherent idea that, when pressed, atheist can't defend. Science certainly can't disprove the supernatural. What ground to you have to say, not that you believe there is no supernatural, but you take it further and say that belief in the supernatural is ridiculous (and dishonest)?
