RE: Open challenge regarding the supernatural
May 20, 2015 at 1:01 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2015 at 1:06 pm by Pyrrho.)
(May 20, 2015 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(May 20, 2015 at 9:49 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."
Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means. The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means. How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now. In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?
That isn't how robvalue defined "supernatural" in the opening post. However, even going with your proposal, the fact that we do explain, by natural means, much of what is going on with mind is strongly suggestive that mind can be explained by natural means. Perhaps we will reach a limit at some point in the future, but at the moment, it is premature to suppose that it cannot, in principle, all be explained.
Also, from your perspective, how is my breakfast this morning distinguishable from a supernatural event? You cannot explain what I had for breakfast. Or even if I had breakfast this morning.
(May 20, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: ... First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means. ....
And what, precisely, would that definite sense be?
As for whether it applies to anything or not, some things can be known to not exist from their very description. For example, there are no round squares. "Supernatural," I suspect, is different in that it is not so much self-contradictory, but that it is probably simply an incoherent pseudo-concept. But we can decide that after you tell us about the "definite semantic sense" of the term.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
