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

[The Architect Of Fate]

I gave a definition which is coherent.


By "observed," of course, you mean observed in the scientific sense. Repeatable, empirical. 

I mean detectable in some way that is public.

In the example I gave, we can observe the frog singing Mozart. We cannot discover the reasons for that through science -- in fact everything science tells us about frogs tells us it's impossible.

And if we saw such a thing, that would immediately *make* it possible. We would then investigate it and see what patterns such behavior shows. THAT is science.

I'm not saying that frogs can really sing, or that anything else supernatural happens. I am only pointing out that you affirm the consequent by determining the only acceptable methods.

Well, we could hear the frog singing duets. We could analyze where the sound is coming from. We could determine  if there is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. if there was, we would have a revolution in physics. If there was not, then, there was a mechanism for that sound production that we could then investigate further.

Right, because that starts out in a way that gives you the conclusion you like. Because "testable" means testable according to the method you prefer. 

This rules out anything which isn't testable according to science. It's begging the question. 

Not 'testable according to science'. Testable in the sense that there is some potential observation that would show it to be wrong, yet all actual observations fail to do so.

And, in this, anything can be an observation as long as it is accessible even by non-believers.

What methods of observation do you that science is missing?

Please explain why. Give examples. Why is talking about frogs having a nature overly Aristotelian? Would it be better for you if I just said that frogs are a certain way, and not another?

Whether frogs are a certain way or not is dependent on observation of frogs. if a frog was able to sing Mozart duets, that would be an observation. And it would lead to further investigation, not simply throwing up hands and proclaiming it to be supernatural.

I'm looking for more than unsupported opinions.

Why? That seems to be all you are giving.

That's right. Testable according to the scientific methods.

No, testable in the sense I gave. It requires falsifiability and accessibility to non-beievers. That is all.

Metaphysical issues and supernatural ones, if they existed, would not be testable in this way. It is begging the question to assert that only such testable things exist.

Is there some way in which they *would* be testable? Again, in the sense that an explanation using them could be shown wrong by some potential observation?

This is the definition you prefer. By limiting the world to things that are testable in this way, you rule out anything else a priori. 

Yes, I eliminate a priori any explantion that is not falsifiable in the sense I gave above.

Do you think that is a real restriction? I think it is a minimal condition to even be considered an explanation.

This is the metal detector issue: when your only tool is a metal detector, you only find metal. This doesn't allow you to conclude that only metal exists.

If something isn't detectable by *any* detector at all, in what sense can it even be said to exist? I'm not limiting it to metal detectors.

In fact, you can design any detector you want in whatever way you want. All that is required is that a non-believer be able to access the information from your detector.

Frogs are not able to sing Mozart, especially simultaneously singing both parts of a duet. 

But if we saw such a thing, then that observation would mean that some frogs *can* indeed sing Mozart duets. Your saying they cannot is shown to be wrong by such an observation.

This is a faith-based statement of metaphysics. Science can't prove that only things testable by science exist. 

What does it mean to say that something exists if it cannot be detectable in any fashion? Once again, I give you complete freedom to design any detector you wish. It must give consistent results (up to a spread that can be determined) and give publically accessible information.

If you cannot do that, even in theory, what sense does it make to even say something exists?

I'm not saying that there are supernatural events. I'm only saying that your view amounts to a metaphysical commitment and faith which can't be proven. It may be correct, but we don't know.

What you're saying is that if something completely inexplicable to modern science happened, you have complete faith that it could be explained by science. Even before you know the explanation, you know it will be science. To me, this is the same as a Christian who says that in cases where we don't know the answer, the answer will surely be God. In both cases the believer is certain of things not proven.

I think the problem is that your idea of what an 'explanation by science'  means is far too narrow. I am simply saying that if there is a detectable pattern *in any way*, then the methods of science can be applied: hypothesis, testing, and modification.

For example, if a frog was found to sing Mozart duets, that could well be taken as raw data of how that frog is. it would be an observational fact. We could then analyze the sound, analyze the frog, etc. And, in the worst case scenario, there would be a revolution in science and we would learn that more things are possible.

Maybe such duet singing frogs would be the solution to limitless energy. And, if so, that would be part of the science of those frogs.

But Poly we have to respect metaphysical making stuff up and demanding actual standards we know work as opposed to the invisible dragon is" faith "