(May 27, 2020 at 9:48 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote:(May 27, 2020 at 9:37 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I already told you that video says nothing about the supernatural.
If you can't support your assertions just say so.
Watch it again, and again, and again till it sinks in.
It doesn't address the supernatural at all. But the fact that you think it does helps me understand your position.
The lecturer is explaining certain things about the natural world. He is arguing that some other things about the natural world -- certain types of particles -- are not possible. Everything in this talk is about the natural world.
For people who assume a priori that the supernatural is impossible, it seems obvious that anything previously explained as supernatural will eventually be shown to be natural. So when the lecturer describes something natural, you think this proves the supernatural to be impossible.
No one is arguing against the idea that many things previously attributed to the supernatural are currently explained as natural. That's a fact.
But the fact that these imagined (natural) particles are shown not to exist in no way rules out the existence of the supernatural. If it were true that mystics explained their visions by referring to as-yet undiscovered natural particles, then the lecturer's talk would show them to be wrong. But no mystic does that. So claiming that no such natural particles exist is irrelevant to them. It is attacking a view they never had.
You of course don't want to type out coherent arguments to explain yourself, and that's fine. That's your right. It seems to me that others, and possibly you, are beginning with the idea that anything called supernatural is actually something natural which hasn't been discovered yet. I don't agree with this. To me, anything which is natural which hasn't been discovered yet has been natural all along. This is why earlier on I mentioned the word "occult," which just means "hidden." For thinkers in an earlier age, who were less clear on the natural/supernatural distinction, things that were not yet explained were just called "hidden." Whether they were natural or not would be determined once they were understood.
The point is that if we discover various new things about the natural world, those are things about the natural world. It doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural.
And to be clear, I have not, here or anywhere, said that the supernatural exists. I have been arguing that the metaphysical commitments you have concerning the supernatural predetermine how you interpret empirical evidence, and determine whether you will entertain supernatural explanations or hold out for later, natural ones. And your arguments here, such as they are, work in favor of what I'm saying.
