Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

---

I get that you are having trouble with the definition of supernatural.   But I don't know what to say.  That is the definition.

Let’s take a look; from Merriam-Webster:

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;  especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit).

I don’t see anything in either of these definitions that explicitly states supernatural things can interact with our observable reality and leave behind evidence. This seems to be something that you’ve injected after the fact. Problem with that is, adding that characteristic to definition 1 invalidates it:

If some thing is interacting with, and evident within the observable universe, then it is no longer ‘beyond the observable universe’. It is natural.

Definition 2 doesn’t even necessitate a true departing from the natural world. It says, ‘appears to’, which does not necessarily eliminate a thing or event from the category of natural.

So, which definition describes the immaculate conception?  If it happened at all; if it was evident in any way; it wouldn’t qualify as supernatural by definition 1. Drawing from definition 2., ‘appears to transcend the laws of nature’, how could you determine that it was an active, intentional manipulation of the laws of the physical world by a god, versus a passively occurring physical anomaly, like the ones you cited in your previous post?

But, if you’d rather, we can drop labels and just talk about concepts.  I’ve no problem with that. I see three possible ontological scenarios for an event or object:

A. It exists and can be evident.

B. It exists, but cannot be evident.

C. Doesn’t exist/didn’t occur at all.

Things that fit description A are automatically disqualified from the category of supernatural by definition 1.  Description C, I hope, is self-explanatory. And B? What rational justification is there for believing in a claim that fits description B, other than for the sake of the claim itself? That would be question begging.

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.

There is a composition fallacy in this analogy. We know that extra-terrestrial, or, ‘outside the earth and it’s atmosphere’ (Merriam-Webster), exists. There is, demonstrably, time-space beyond planet earth. Further, if extra-terrestrial beings from another galaxy exist, we could infer based on what we know of the physical world that they would be comprised of matter.  We can’t infer anything like that about the supernatural.  I’ve asked over and over for even one positive characteristic of the supernatural, and I’ve got no response so far.

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.

As I said, the second something interacts with, affects, or is otherwise evident within the natural world, it is a part of the natural world, and is disqualified from the category of supernatural.  

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.

To be clear, I’m not asserting that these things are impossible. I’m merely saying that they’re highly unlikely based on what we already know via rigorous scientific observation, so in order for me to believe it happened, I would need more than testimony. 

RE: Extraordinary claims and an experiment that produces a rare anomaly.  
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.

I didn’t articulate my thoughts clearly; I apologize. Yes, we would only need to demonstrate that it happened once to show that such an occurrence is possible, but testimony from thousands of years ago is not a demonstration. You would need testable, physical evidence to do that.

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.

Sure. And, exactly no elements of these types of claims contradict known scientific principles about the world. That’s a hurdle only supernatural claims need to clear by way of demonstrable, physical evidence.  

If it can be sufficient, and can make evident beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you agree, or should we set Bill Crosby free?

Whether or not the prosecution made its case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different discussion than whether or not I’m personally convinced Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, and why.  I don’t think the rest of the women’s testimony was allowed into either of his trials. I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is guilty. Sixty women’s accountings are enough to convince me that a rich, famous, powerful man was a sexual predator. Now, if sixty women; if a thousand women; claimed that Cosby impregnated them absent intercourse, I am going to need some kind of corroborating, scientific evidence before I believe it. 

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.

What did people have knowledge and evidence of?

If knowledge can provide sufficient evidence, which leads to decisions beyond a reasonable doubt;  I would ask, what more are you asking for?

I’m confused here.  How does knowledge provide evidence.

---

Hi Lady,

I think that your criticism of "injecting after the fact" the matter of something which is supernatural being able to interact with the natural is interesting.  It also does not say that it does not; which is what is important.  As long as it meets the criteria of the definition is all that matters, anything which outside of that is not effected.   To go back to the example of an extra terrestrial;  it could be defined as a being originating from outside of the planet earth.   This definition doesn't mention that such a being could come to earth, nor does it preclude it.  If an E.T. did visit the earth, it wouldn't cease to be defined as at E.T.  

As I said before, I don't understand why you are so hung up on this supernatural vs natural thing or how it plays into your argument.  I don't see how this affects in a discussion about evidence.  Do you think that you have a bias against the supernatural?   Is that why you would move the bar to some unknown and seemingly unreachable level?   As we discussed before science is a tool for gaining knowledge.  It does very well in describing and testing the natural and repeatable sciences, and can assist by adding it's knowledge to other investigations.   However not everything fits into the category where it can be repeated by science, nor is it the only path to knowledge.   If we observe something, and it is well evidenced, then we don't necessarily need to be able to repeat or even understand it, to know that it is true.  Would you agree?  It doesn't seem like science played a big part in the Bill Cosby case, nor does it need to.  While the philosophy of modern science has made great increases to our overall knowledge, we had evidence and knowledge before that particular area of study.

You state the need for physical evidence in order to believe some things.   I had mentioned parthenogenesis previously which relates to the virgin birth.   How much evidence would it take for you to believe that some scientists where successful in this?  I'm trying to get an idea for where you are setting your standards.  What if they where able to accomplish this once, but not able to repeat it?   If they had good documented evidence, then would you believe it?   Would you need to see it for yourself?  It seems to me, that you only raise the bar on some things (which don't fit your world view), but not for others.  Why is there a difference?  It does not seem that your objection is based on a standard of evidence (which looks like it is variable for you), it doesn't appear to be on what you previously thought what "unlikely".  Just because something is unlikely, does not mean that it did not happen, or as we have discussed, that we need equal or more evidence to believe it (how would you even quantitize such a thing).  Why isn't standard evidence not good enough?  Again the circular argument seems to appear, that you don't believe because you evidence but you need to believe in order to admit the evidence.  Perhaps no evidence would be able to convince you of a thing, or you will place it far off, into a hyper-skeptical realm, which is mostly unreachable; but, I don't think that you can say that this is an evidential approach. Or that there is not enough evidence, if you keep moving the bar.

And again, I'm not talking about anything in particular here. It could apply to flat earth theorist, or those who deny evolution, or talk of supernatural things. There may be good reasons that someone denies these things. They may be right or wrong in their approach or conclusions. We might disagree, in how we handle different evidence, we might disagree in the conclusion. But I believe that in an objective discussion about evidence, that our reasons and logic, should be consistent, that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, not just to what confirms our previous understandings.