Atheism

[LadyForCamus]

Ok... so you appear to be saying, that it would be incorrect to even ask for evidence or the supernatural (as many atheists do) depending on ones definition.

Correct.

As I have said, I don't get too caught up on the terms supernatural vs natural. And I believe that you are the one who brought up the term supernatural

I think that what one means by ‘supernatural’, is a necessary clarification in a discussion about evidence.  As I said in my previous post, if we are defining supernatural as ‘not natural’, then it would be a category error to ask for evidence of that which cannot be evident by its own definition. This is why I walked back on my proposition: supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.

OTOH, if you’re defining ‘supernatural’ as an extension of the natural world, then it would fall into the category of ‘natural things’, or just, ‘things’, and its interactions with other things that exist could produce evidence.

What I would consider supernatural, would be something outside of the natural universe.

Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

These are not ontological explanations. They’re merely negative descriptions of things we already know exist.  You’re saying what they’re not, instead of what they are. That’s like someone asking me to explain what light is, and I answer: ‘Well, light is...not-dark.’ So, I still don’t understand what you mean by ‘supernatural’.

In any case, if the thing, which is being described if it can interact with the natural universe, it would seem that it can have evidence of that interaction.

I agree. As I said above, whatever effects it has on the world that it belongs to would fall under the purview of science, and if these interactions leave behind physical evidence, we may have access to it.

Something could be seen or experienced, which that information could be transmitted to others and be evidence for what is not able to be seen.

Correct.  That would be considered personal testimony.

there could be other evidence left behind, which could be evaluated.

Correct.  Ofc, physical evidence, and enough of it, makes a much stronger case for any claim than testimony.  I can’t imagine that would be in dispute, would it?

If there is evidence for something, and you reason that natural forces are incapable of producing this effect, then that leaves you with either some unknown natural occurrence, or something outside of the natural which caused the effect.

This statement is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. We haven’t adequately defined what ‘supernatural’ is, or what ‘outside the natural world’ is. As someone else mentioned in another post, a logical, causal connection between a natural effect and a supernatural cause cannot be made if that cause can’t even be properly defined, or described. Any argument that claims the cause of an effect must be ‘not-natural’ because we don’t know of a natural explaination, is an argument from ignorance.  

2. You’re propping up these ‘extra-natural’ claims on testimony alone, while failing to consider in context, the well-evidenced facts about the world that disagree with them.

So, have you noticed what happened here? I conceded to your argument that there is no category error by way of allowing the definition of supernatural to mean: an extension of, but still included in, the category of natural things. My concession now allows us to reasonably apply the principles of evidence and evidence analysis uniformly across all claims. This is what you were arguing for at the beginning of the discussion.

The result?  Lack of evidence is still a major problem for biblical claims.

It is a scientific fact that human semen is necessary for human conception. The body of high-quality, scientific evidence supporting this fact is overwhelming. It lands itself at the very top of the evidence hierarchy.  In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it. Testimony, at the bottom of the hierarchy, doesn’t even come close.