(April 10, 2018 at 10:53 am)SteveII Wrote: A few things wrong with this.
And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.
Quote:1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural.
Oh, so you can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Why does this sound like an argument made out of convenience?
Quote:3. There is a nearly limitless number of examples you can dream up that if it happened, you would ascribe a supernatural cause. Why limbs? What gives you the idea that that is what we should expect to see? I can't think of one reason to think that this is what we should expect to see. It's a red herring.
You know why. Don't pretend there is not a good reason why this example specifically is continually brought up as an argument against the likelihood of the supernatural. The likelihood of limbs growing back spontaneously would be incredibly high under supernaturalism/theism, and yet that's not something we ever witness. Instead, all we witness as so-called "miracles" are phenomena easily explained by naturalism or involve invisible disorders or illnesses.
