(May 27, 2020 at 7:46 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, yeah. He’s gonna have to explain exactly how one rules out a natural explanation for some phenomenon.
Does "he" refer to me here?
If the subject were less emotional for people, I think it would be obvious how science would rule out something: through scientific research. That's really the only way science can do anything.
So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.
At that point someone who's committed to your unprovable metaphysical view would have to say that science is wrong, that anything we observe must be natural even if science tells us otherwise. This puts the unprovable metaphysics ahead of scientific consensus.
It's been stated very clearly on this thread. No matter what is observed, you've already concluded, before the research is done, what kind of conclusion you'll reach.
I'm not saying supernatural things go on. I am only saying that your metaphysical commitment, while unprovable, pre-determines what answers you will allow.
