Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?

(A)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.

(B) 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.

(D) 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.

(E) 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.

(F) 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.  (G) 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.

---

Hello Lady,

(I've included footnotes in red referencing what you wrote)


As I said, I don't get too hung up on the words natural or supernatural.  There are a number of miracles in the Bible, which can have natural explanations, although it is the timing which makes them miraculous.  Some are threatened by this, I find it very interesting.  People have some varied meanings about what "supernatural" means, and if you would prefer another definition that is fine with me.  Just let me know what we are talking about.   I was curious so I looked it up.   The first dictionary gave almost exactly the same definition as I did (I must have looked it up before).   However they added outside of science; which I think would follow if it is outside of nature (as that is sciences realm).  I can understand you complaint about negative definitions (A) However, when we define what A is , then we naturally define NOT A as well which would be anything that doesn't fit into the category of A.   I wouldn't have thought this would be a problem, considering how often the definition of atheist is given here : 

(B-D)  I agree, one or more people relaying the information for what they have seen would be personal testimony evidence.   As well, there may be evidence which lends itself to scientific study.  Corroborating evidence is always good, and the more the better.  I agree.  However I wouldn't agree, that physical evidence always trumps testimony or direct evidence.   It may (depending on the evidence),  but often testimony can tell you so much more.   In any case, I am leery if there is only a single item of uncorroborated evidence though.  It's more difficult for multiple independent items of evidence to be in error.

Concerning your bullet points. 
1.  If you no what natural is, then you no what supernatural is (according to the definition I gave).   We may not be able to say what exactly supernatural consists of, but we can identify it. 
2.  We use evidence to give us knowledge about what we don't know and to support those claims to others.  I think that if you see something or others see something which contradicts your world view, then that is evidence against your prior understanding.  If you are not going to accept evidence, then what is the point in asking for it?   Physical evidence can be mistaken or planted as well; which ends up with a misleading conclusion if you don't catch it.   We need to test our evidence, same as we need to test our world view.

(E)  I had thought that we agreed, that if the "supernatural" can interact with the natural world, that this interaction may leave evidence.   Otherwise, if there is no interaction then we would never know about it to begin with (apart from perhaps philosophical reasoning).  This does not  change what the supernatural is, or that it is outside of the natural world,  but does require that it be able to enter or at least interact with it.

(F)  Our science and knowledge changes.   If you look up parthenogenesis, there is reproduction from a single parent.  There was one who accidentally did so in a lab, and this has been used to produce stem cells as well.   It normally only produces females (No X chromosome) however, there is also Chimeraism, where a person could have two sets of DNA, which can be a female and a male set.    I found a lot, that it was said, that it is technically possible, but highly unlikely to happen naturally in humans.  Now from reading the biblical text, I am uncertain, that this is what is being described.  As well the text and Christian tradition doesn't lend to God becoming a man and having relations of the flesh with Mary either.   However this does show that it is possible or thought to be so, even naturally and although highly unlikely.  However if God can make man (and the universe)  I don't think that fertilizing an egg is beyond the realm of possibility.   I don't see where a contradiction is, unless you preclude God from the story (on a priori bias).  I can understand peoples skepticism.  That's not the type of thing that is witnessed or lends itself to any other type of evidence.  If I had a daughter (or wife), and she claimed to become pregnant from God, I would certainly question it.  And I would likely be asking God to give witness, the same as he did for Joseph.  I personally wouldn't use this as historical evidence, nor is it required to substantiate to believe the other evidence.  The point is, that you are appealing to what we don't know, not making a statement that contradicts it what we do know.  

(G) "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."  This sounds a lot like a re-wording of "extraordinary claims; requires extraordinary evidence"   If we have something which we do a 999 times, and get a certain result.   Then on the one thousand time, we get a different result.  Do we need to repeat and see the abnormal result 1000 times in order to count what we seen as evidence?   And during that time, it is likely we are building more of a case for the primary result; does this mean that we need even more evidence then when we started.   Perhaps after the 500th event, we start to think that we will never get any other result.   Now I think that we only need sufficient evidence to demonstrate a claim.   Sufficient in this example where the results need merely be observed, would be to see something different (unless perhaps the time it can be seen in limited or some other reason to doubt the observation).    And the numbers can be whatever you want.   Even to some of the fine tuning constants, which give astronomical new meaning.  Perhaps for something else, it may take more.   Turning lead into gold for instance, may need to verify that it is lead, and the result is gold (especially if the method to change is an aerosol can :   Evidence gives you knowledge that you did not already have.   Evidence may change what we thought we knew.   It doesn't take extraordinary evidence (whatever that is), it only requires sufficient evidence.  That is, unless you are providing more evidence for a competing claim, which both can not be true.  

You had an edit, where you mentioned something that I wanted to address.  If you changed your mind, or rethought the issue and do not hold to it anymore, that is fine.  If I'm remembering correctly, you where questioning proving something is supernatural, by excluding the natural.   I believe you said that this was the argument from ignorance.  This is incorrect.   It is called a proof by contradiction or you may see it in the form of a disjunctive syllogism.   With a true dichotomy such as A or NOT A, then if you can show that A is false, then NOT A by default must be true.  And of course this works with the inverse as well.  This is because you only have two choices; and if one is false, the other is necessarily true.  The argument from ignorance on the other hand, is claiming that something must be true, because there is no evidence against it.  As I said, you may have changed your mind on this, but your arguments seem to say "we don't know" quite a bit. They raise the bar of evidence based on not knowing, when the evidence is suppose to show you what you don't know.  Again, this seems circular to me.  If sufficient evidence is not good enough, then what is?  If it is sufficient for one thing, then why not something similar (without good reason for the difference)?   Wouldn't the conclusion still follow from the reasoning?   I admit, that in daily life, we take things for granted.   We don't have sufficient evidence, but because the claim is mundane, or unimportant, or simply expedient (along with a number of other reasons), we accept the information on faith.  We are not raising the bar, or lowering the bar, but just working on an assumption or trust or however else, you want to describe it.   We grant that the evidence is good enough, even if not sufficient for the claim.  This last section is not about the discussion of miracles per say.   This is what I believe, that epistemology is logical and consistent, and the conclusion follows from reason.  It applies to any claim, and any matter of epistemology.   People may disagree on some particulars, but because it is consistent and logical, then we can hold them to that standard.   Because it is not a moving goal post, based off of bias, subjective knowledge, or how they feel.

---

One more note: and sorry for the already long post.  I was trying to address all you had said.

However the proof from contradiction thing reminded me of a anecdote from J. Warner Wallace in his second book "God's Crime Scene".

Wallace was a LA homicide detective, and later Cold Case Detective  (most featured detective ever on Dateline)

Anyways, it was about a training game for detectives he called inside or outside of the room (perhaps more of a thought exercise).   If all the evidence can be accounted for from inside of the room, then the death could be attributed to either suicide or accident.  If you could not account for the scene from all the evidence from inside the room, then it is a homicide, and you must search for evidence outside of the room. 

This wasn't presented, as proof by contradiction, but it came to mind with the discussion.