(July 7, 2018 at 12:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
I get that you are having trouble with the definition of supernatural. But I don't know what to say. That is the definition. If you want to define it differently go ahead (as long as it isn't to estranged from the common defintion and you don't try to equivocate) I'll likely make concession the best I can. As I said, it's not that big of a concern for me. I would note on your objections, that we describe "extra terrestrials" similarly. That they would be beings from outside of this earth. It wouldn't make sense to ask what color they are, or how tall they are, based on that definition. One might also make a distinction between aquatic and non-aquatic mammals. It's a broad definition, which doesn't require specifics which are outside of that definition. And I would remind you, that you are the one who brought up supernatural
As to your question the quality or attribute that makes the distinction, is that they are outside of (or not a part of) the natural forces of the universe. That's it.
Quote:’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist. We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’? I’ll point to my questions above.
I tend to agree; however, that is exactly how it is often described here. And I believe that Neo has made that same joke, or something similar. I personally prefer the old distinction between atheists and agnostic, but realize that many in the atheistic community, don't like those more specified understandings.
I would agree, that science is not a worldview (although I think that scientism could be considered one). And I agree, that if something supernatural is to interact with the natural world (which would be necessary if one is claiming evidence for it) then it may be testable by science. I agree that science is a tool (specifically a philosophical methodology), which has it's uses. And if that tool is appropriate to the evidence, then it should be applied in that way.
Quote:I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?
If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.
I don't offer that as evidence of the biblical claim. It is however, evidence against the claim that it cannot happen, or an argument from ignorance to such.
RE: Extraordinary claims and an experiment that produces a rare anomaly.
Quote:It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural. I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.
No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close
I'm confused here. On one hand, you say that we only need to demonstrate that it happened once; then you say that we need equally strong evidence that it happened at all. These seem like two competing statements. I would agree with the first... not with the second. What would equally strong evidence evidence look like for something that only happens 1 out of 1000 times, or 1 out of 1,000,000 times. If it is rare or unusual, it seems that you could never overcome the evidence for the normal or mundane? We don't discount things just because they are rare. But back to testimony and the Crosby case. I'm unsure if in a rape/assault if they are instructed to have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, such as in a murder case. If not, I think that it should be. However murder cases are also tried, where there is only testimony as evidence. Testimony is sufficient in rape cases, and murder cases. It is sufficient to establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases. It is evidence to make an informed decision as to the truth of a matter. If it can be sufficient, and can make evident beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you agree, or should we set Bill Crosby free? I would also point out, that I don't think that science played a role in this case, and that people did have knowledge and evidence before modern scientific methodology was established. If knowledge can provide sufficient evidence, which leads to decisions beyond a reasonable doubt; I would ask, what more are you asking for?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther