Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[The Architect Of Fate]

So bell vomits up a lot of strawman and dishonest framing of poly's positions 

He statements are not faith based your just projecting faith onto them and no Bells definition isn't coherent

---

The term "supernatural" is notoriously hard to define. So if we're going to talk about it, it makes sense to have some notion of what we're discussing, and I offered a traditional definition. But if you'd prefer a different one, I'm willing to work with it.

My personal view is that the term 'supernatural' is simply incoherent.

Does this mean that everything that hasn't been observed isn't natural? That seems problematic to me. It would mean that for a very long time the H. pylori in people's stomachs wasn't natural, and then it became natural when we observed it. There are a lot of rocks on Mars that haven't been observed yet, but I don't believe that they are supernatural. 

If you want to say that anything which has been or could be observed is natural, I think that's just a fancy way to say that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural, by definition. So you've defined it out of existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

No, but anything that cannot be observed, even in theory, might as well be non-existent.

As I've said more than once now, if we could explain something like that through science and the nature of frogs, the explanation wouldn't be supernatural. 


OK, this is clear. You're saying that by definition that there's no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christians who hold to the definition of supernatural I gave earlier agree with you that God is natural.

---

No, not at all. Dark matter is so far unexplained. I have been clear that there can be unexplained things which are natural. If in the future people worked out exactly what dark matter is and does, and we see that it operates according to its nature, then it's natural.

This is a strong claim. Here are some quotes that give my understanding of why science relies on methodological naturalism. Please tell me why they are wrong.

from https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/...ralism.htm

The problem, ultimately, is in the definition of the concept of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I think it much better to focus of 'testable' and 'untestable' in regard to hypotheses.

WAY too many philosophers are still stuck with an Aristotelian mindset.

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

This I agree with: that faith is not a part of science. Science requires testable hypotheses (which means there must be some way, in theory, that they could be shown to be wrong).

from https://infidels.org/library/modern/barb...alism.html quoting Paul Kurtz:

And, again, the problem is in the concept of 'natural'. What is *actually* required isn't 'natural' it is 'testable'.

and from the same site, quoting Arthur Strahler:


It seems to me that you and others on this thread are advocating methodological naturalism by insisting that if a frog sang Mozart we would look for and discover a natural explanation.

Then you are misunderstanding. If a frog was able to sing Mozart, that would become the raw data about certain frogs from which we learn what frogs are capable of doing. Now, a deeper explanation: how do they do it without vocal chords, etc, is clearly also needed.

Back to your post:


I deliberately chose an example which looks impossible. The music I pointed to is a duet between a soprano and a bass, in which both are singing different melodies and articulating different words. There are singers who can produce two notes at once, but no one has yet sung two parts from a Mozart duet simultaneously. I think that given what we know of the human speech apparatus, it is impossible. And a fortiori for frogs. 

[size=undefined]

And all that means is that if we find such a thing and if we cannot find another explanation, it will simply be taken as raw data that some people can do this. And, if it is impossible from the human speech apparatus, then the determination of how the sound is generated becomes interesting.

And, truthfully, the most exciting part would be the potential violation of the law of conservation of energy. If *that* can be verified, then a great deal of science will need to be reconsidered.

But, even in that case, we would investigate when the phenomenon happens, how it happens, conditions under which it happens, and conditions when it doesn't. And, ultimately, what would arise is a different science with a different understanding of what is possible.

And, this has happened in the past with science. It would be a revolution in science, but the basic scientific method would still be preserved and would arrive at 'explanations' just as we do today.
[/size]

You are insistent that if this impossible thing were observed it would be natural. I think there are some things we can rule out as occurring given the facts of nature as we know them. But, as I have said several times now, if science finds a natural explanation then the thing is not supernatural. I am not as committed as you are to the proposition that no such supernatural thing (according to the definition I'm using) has never and will never and could never happen. It seems unlikely to me, but the impossibility of the supernatural is not something science can demonstrate. Therefore our dismissal of the supernatural is a belief about metaphysics, not a scientific conclusion.

What I am saying is that science would be able to study it, to analyze it, and to find patterns in how it works. That is what science *is*, ultimately. The term 'natural' is, ultimately, just those things that show testable patterns.
[/quote]



Prepare for an unholy shitstorm of misrepresentations, strawmen, And sophistry .Mixed with disingenuous framing to accuse you of "faith " and falsely comparing you to theists