(December 27, 2018 at 4:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(December 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: How do you know the object does not exist?
Also, here's an explanation with source linked here.
"The concept of the supernatural proposes the existence of things that are inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature."
There you go. Now you know what it means and should be able to be more specific. You would just need to specify what evidence you would find acceptable that are separate from the laws of nature.
Well, the laws of nature are descriptive. So, to say that something is inexplicable by the laws of nature simply means there are no discernible patterns in its behavior. Furthermore, it would mean there is no discernible patterns in the probabilities of its behavior, etc. Since evidence of existence would require a discernible pattern of some sort, that would imply there cannot be evidence of the existence.
At that point I would question in what sense it can be said to exist.
Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes. So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence. What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence? If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."
