(April 11, 2018 at 11:06 am)SteveII Wrote:(April 11, 2018 at 10:37 am)Mathilda Wrote: How does the supernatural effect the natural yet cannot be detected by natural means?
Natural things are also observed by the effect they have on other natural things. Like for example, what photons are absorbed and emitted.
Sounds like special pleading to me.
Because our tools and abilities (which themselves are bases in the natural world) are only useful in observing natural states of affairs. If there is a supernatural (something not in the natural world), it would be by definition, beyond our abilities to examine. So a supernatural cause would be, by definition, beyond our ability to examine.
We are left with only observing the natural effect. We can rationally infer a supernatural cause if the probability of there being a natural cause is sufficiently low.
You don't know how things are observed do you. It's like you think that information is magically transmitted from an object to your brain. You're argument relies on your continued ignorance.
Regardless of what it is, you can only observe things based on how it affects the parts of nature that our brains can sense (air pressure, photons etc), as has been pointed out to you twice now (now three times because I am sure this won't be the last time).
So using your definition of supernatural, it both cannot be observed by definition of it being supernatural, but can be observed because it affects natural things just like anything else.
Not only is there no evidence that the supernatural exists, but you can't even come up with a definition that distinguishes it from the natural.
And I think we all know how this thread will proceed. You'll ignore this point and continue pasting the same definition and repeating yourself while becoming more arrogant. So next question.
How is the supernatural different from the natural if both can only be observed by how they affect the nature that we can sense?[
