Atheism

[LadyForCamus]

---

RoadRunner79


It’s not a criticism; I’m merely making a point.  If you’re using definition 1. (beyond the universe) then anything that could interact with the universe and leave evidence wouldn’t qualify.  If you’re using definition 2., then any rare phenomena with a scientific explanation (even if we don’t what it is at the time it occurred) could be considered ‘supernatural’.  So where do biblical claims fit in?


Such claims don’t meet the criteria by definition, as I’ve explained.  If something is interacting with our physical world, physically changing it, and leaving behind testable, observable physical evidence, then it is a part of this world; it can be described via scientific inquiry, and no longer fits the definition of ‘supernatural.’


Again, this analogy commits a composition fallacy.  Please, see my previous post. 


Well, because theists assert that they are seperate, distinct categories of existing things, and I am asking for someone to defend that position by explaining what a supernatural thing is made of, and what disqualifies it from being be a natural thing.  


See below for my position...again.  You haven’t addressed it yet:

Because if something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural.  If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, effect it, and leave evidence behind, but is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that.

---

I quoted a large section here, because it seems that it is essentially the same argument.  Namely, that something which is outside of the natural known universe, cannot leave evidence (or enter?) it.  That if it leaves evidence in the natural world, then it is necessarily a part of the the natural world.  I would disagree.  There is not reason for this statement.

There is no reason to think that any existing thing acting and interacting within the universe isn’t a part of that universe, and since the definition of the word supernatural doesn’t specifically name ‘the ability to leave physical evidence, yet be wholly apart from’, as a particular attribute, you are going to have to make a case for that position. 

Take the example of an extra-terrestrial previously.  The definition is similar, of a being which originates outside of the from the Earth.   There is no reason, if such a being exists, that it cannot come to earth, and leave evidence of that visitation (if it had the power to do so).  Second, when it leaves evidence on the earth, of it's visit, that is evidence of an extra-terrestial if it makes evident, that this being was from another planet.   We wouldn't say that the evidence points to a  terrestrial being, simply because it was found here, if reason shows that it did not originate from here ("originate being the key word).  Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with the composition fallacy.   I can't even figure out where in my arguments you think that I might be appealing to the characteristics the things that make up an E.T.

“Terrestrial”, and “extra-terrestrial”, are both places known to exist within the physical universe.  Terrestrial beings and extra-terrestrial beings (if they exist) are physical objects existing within this universe. The assumption that whatever lies ‘beyond’ the physical, natural universe could have a relationship with the universe as a whole, the same way that physical objects and events existing within the universe have with each other, is your composition fallacy. There is no rational comparison between ‘physical things within the physical universe compared to each other,’ and, ‘the universe itself’ compared to some non-physical ‘other’ category.

Bias against the supernatural?  I just want someone to explain to me what it is, and how it’s distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’. To your second sentence, I don’t know understand what you mean, I’m sorry.

It is different in that it transcends the natural universe (or forces),[/i]
and it differs from non-existent if it exists. (sorry couldn't help myself)

If it can leave physical evidence; if it can be present in this universe, and alter the contents of it in some physical, material way, then it would fall under the purview of science.  That would qualify the phenomenon as ‘natural’.

As to what makes up something that is supernatural, I don't know that I can say from the definition.  It's similar to the definition of E.T.   Must an extra-terrestial be like us.  And the answer is that there is nothing in the definition which says either way.

An extra-terrestrial, like us terrestrials, and everything else that exists in the natural world, would most certainly be made up of matter. This is your composition fallacy again. Do you think that the supernatural is made up of some other kind of physical substance besides matter? Or, some non-physical force? If it’s not material how could it possibly interact with the material world? Further, if it’s not material, how could it be made up of any kind of thing at all? When I ask these questions about the positive characteristics of the ‘supernatural’ it becomes obvious to me that the concept is incoherent.  

If you seen something, say something that you didn't believe in previously.  Would you believe in it afterwards?   Would you need a scientific study, to tell you what you saw?  Would you believe even if someone in a white lab coat told you it couldn't happen?

I honestly don’t know.  What I do know, is that wouldn’t expect a rational person to take me on my word.  

The answers to these might depend on a few things.   One how well where you able to see what you think you saw?  How much time did you have to see it?   Did others see it as well, or is their corroborating evidence to support that you did see this thing?  If you have strong reason to believe that you did see what you think you saw, then why would you need a scientific study (unless someone can add more information to make things clearer)?

Again, I’m not sure what it would take to convince me, as the first person observer.  But, I would expect that if I told you my whole family saw Santa, you’d withhold believing us until our claim could be well-corroborated with physical evidence.

---

Yes, we knew facts about the case; knew demonstrable facts about our world relating to the subject matter of the case, as I mentioned several posts ago.  


And as a follow up question I asked you:

So again, you seem to be saying that the virgin birth has a scientific explanation, and therefore was a natural occurrence. Is this correct?   It’s also worth noting that the human embryos created via parthenogenesis were not viable.  So, contrary to your implications, it has not been demonstrated that a woman can give birth to a live infant (as claimed by the Bible) via such a mechanism.

---

The bible doesn't go much into the details of how the virgin birth occurred.   I was mostly bringing up the other things, because you where incredulous to it.   I wouldn't necessarily point to the virgin birth, in a discussion of histical evidence (you brought it up).  However, just because you don't know of something, or even if our best scientists, can't repeat something, doesn't present much of a case against sufficient evidence.  It's not a good reason to deny evidence.

I think it’s pretty straightforward from the Bible that the Virgin birth was meant to be interpreted as a miracle from god, lol. I can’t imagine any self-respecting Christian would intentionally conflate the potential causes. If I’m incredulous of the alleged virgin birth because it defies what we know about the natural world via scientific inquiry, and you counter me with an example of some similar or related phenomenon that has a naturalistic, scientific explanation, then you seem to be implying that the Virgin birth was possible as a natural phenomenon. No god required. Is that your position?  If not, then your parthenogenesis example was irrelevant. I’m willing to move past it though.  I’m just saying, we don’t get to use science only when we think it works in our favor in a particular instance, and then poo-poo at its inadequacy when it becomes an obstacle.

---

You see, when you say to me, ‘if you accept that testimony is evidence, then you should believe that biblical claims are true, because they are evidenced by testimony’, what you’re really asking me to do is turn my back on the overwhelming body of evidence that suggests they’re likely not true.  I won’t do that. I can’t.

---

See what overwhelming evidence or reason would you have to say that these things did not occur?

An almost insurmountable collection of scientific facts about the world indicates it is highly unlikely that: someone was dead for three days and came back to life, someone walked ontop of water, and that a woman, two-thousand years ago, had a baby absent human semen. No amount of testimony is sufficient to override this evidence.  Not for me, anyway.  

Science tells us that If there is evidence that it did occur, and natural forces can be reasonable excluded, then that would point to something supernatural as the cause.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think any self-respecting scientist would agree with that reasoning.  And, how exactly have believers reasonably ruled out natural explanations for what people thousands of years ago supposedly said they saw?  How did believers determine beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone saw anything at all?  

This last part here, smells a bit like scientism. The scientific methodology is a great tool for gaining knowledge.  For collecting data, and analyzing trends.  But it's not the be all; end all of knowledge.  It's just one of the ways.  If I have evidence, and scientists offer incredulity;  I;m going with the evidence.

And, my point is that Christians’ ancient, alleged eye-witness testimony doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  It has to contend with hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific discovery.

---

Also @RR,

Sorry for being so tardy getting back to you. It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience!