An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[Purple Rabbit]

You dismiss the "existence of the supernatural" because there is not "a shred of evidence" (+1) making it "futile to fabulate about" because you "could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives" "but would have no clue on what basis to choose one" (+2)

Twice there?

You did learn to read, didn't you?

1) It says "we can't rule out" in there doesn't it? Any idea why it is in there? Anyway, no assumption there.

2) I have no shred of evidence for the natural, so there is no assumption there. If you have a shred like that please bring it forward any time so we can evaluate it.

3) Because I have no shred on X, I do not make assumptions about X. Not on how X might affect reality. Not on the existence or non-existence of X. This is quite straightforward too. From the principle of parsimony I derive that it would be redundant to make any assumption if I have no shred of evidence of X. Bottom line: no assumption being made there.

Compare this to how science deals with god: there is no single statement about god in science. Not a statement about his non-existence, not a statement about his existence. There is simply no god in the equations. If you have a better proposal on how to not make assumption on something please bring it forward.

4) the natural does not equal the material, the supernatural does not equal the non-material.

---

I disagree. As I said in one of my previous posts, it seems to me that this 'alternative causation' makes the 'supernatural' into a natural category (amenable to scientific study being the hallmark of the natural).

That's an interesting proposal, but it's faulty and a corruption of language because it redefines a term to prove a point in hindsight.

If you say that you exclude the supernatural than you leave open the possibility that there is a phenomenon X that might be considered part of "the supernatural". So X might be labeled as a supernatural concept. The supernatural here is defined as not being part of the natural. It is the negation of the natural. But the natural in short is that what is under (possible) investigation of science. That what we can know of, conforms to a pattern and somehow have access to.

But if Y is a phenomenon we knowingly or unknowingly never can have acccess to, than there is no distinction between the hypothesized natural version of Y and the supernatural version of Y. As is the current situation for string theory since it isn't evidenced.

Please observe that your definition of the natural (amenable to scientific study) does not suffice to settle the dispute since this without further criterions in the end is an argument from authorithy (it ultimately relies on the authority with some party to label it scientific). Is mathematics scientific study? It cannot be evidenced from reality but it sure as hell is amenable to scientific study.

So, I wonder, according to you is string theory supernatural now and maybe natural tomorrow?

If so, than to say so is a redefinition of terms and comparing the old definition with the new one a logical impossibility.

You could use other definitions of naturalism, for instance
1) Equate it to monism, the idea that there is one type of stuff. Than if we ever find evidence for some other stuff (dualism), the supernatural will be evidenced.
2) That's what logically consistent and coherent with natural phenomna we already know

But these definitions put restrictions on the natural that to my taste go beyond the intended meaning.