Presumption of naturalism

[Neo-Scholastic]

"supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law.  The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply".  Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.

Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?

And what is that thing for which there is insufficient data? We can have an unclear picture of something while still acknowledging its existence.

[robvalue]

In such cases, wouldn't the word "unexplained" would be sufficient and less ambiguous? To class something as "outside natural law" implies we have a comprehensive knowledge of natural law, which we clearly do not. We probably never will.

I don't believe supernatural has an agreed, meaningful/useful definition.

Rob, I tend to see a recurring pattern with you referring to unanimous definitions.  Do you believe truth to be relative?

I don't understand the first sentence, sorry. I like to agree on definitions of words before a debate rather than halfway through, sure. I find your definition of supernatural to be a very loaded way of saying unexplained. You seem to assume that unexplained phenomena are not natural until they are proved to be natural; that's an argument from ignorance.

"Breakdown of natural law" is talking about our current models failing, it doesn't mean there isn't any natural law explaining it. We describe nature, we don't prescribe it.

But for the purposes of this discussion, you can call unexplained supernatural, it makes no difference to me!

I don't really understand the question either, or what it's got to do with anything. Relative to what? But I'll say no, truth isn't relative.

[Kingpin]

Rob, I tend to see a recurring pattern with you referring to unanimous definitions.  Do you believe truth to be relative?

I don't understand the first sentence, sorry. I like to agree on definitions of words before a debate rather than halfway through, sure. I find your definition of supernatural to be a very loaded way of saying unexplained. You seem to assume that unexplained phenomena are not natural until they are proved to be natural; that's an argument from ignorance.

"Breakdown of natural law" is talking about our current models failing, it doesn't mean there isn't any natural law explaining it. We describe nature, we don't prescribe it.

But for the purposes of this discussion, you can call unexplained supernatural, it makes no difference to me!

I don't really understand the question either, or what it's got to do with anything. Relative to what? But I'll say no, truth isn't relative.

What I mean to say here Rob is in a lot of our discussions you bring up defining something.  Like in the mind vs matter thread you asked if we defined "exist".  I'm just noticing you seem to think that all things are relative.  I'm glad you don't think truth is relative, but I guess the more important question is, can truth be known?

[robvalue]

I like to pin down definitions because people often don't use a word consistently, and slide it around to fit different parts of an argument. That's a dirty tactic and I like to nip it in the bud. Often people are so used to it they don't realize it, so hopefully I'm doing them a favour if it's unintentional by getting them to think. I found your use of supernatural to be dodgy which is why I pulled it up; similarly I don't think that guy had any idea what he meant by "exist".

Well, truth cannot be known in so far as we can never be sure what we think is true is actually true. That is the problem of solipsism, and also because all information goes through at least one filter first; a filter which cannot be inspected objectively. We can only say something is "true" if it follows logicically from another "true" statement. But sooner or later you need to have axioms/assumptions, or say it's only true insofar as the perceived objective reality exists in some form. Also, we are fallible, so we can never discount simply being mistaken.

Science isn't concerned with absolute truth, it's concerned with models that consistently stand up to scrutiny beyond reasonable doubt.

[Cato]

Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?

And what is that thing for which there is insufficient data? We can have an unclear picture of something while still acknowledging its existence.

So unclear that this thing for which there is insufficient data is purported to be known by deeds and dicta memorialized in a special book. Right.

[robvalue]

I'm using a worrying amount of fancy stupid bullshit words these days.

I think I may have been bitten by WLC. I'll go see my doctor. I don't know if I'm making sense any more or just throwing scrabble tiles around.

[Esquilax]

Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?

And what is that thing for which there is insufficient data? We can have an unclear picture of something while still acknowledging its existence.

We do acknowledge the existence of that thing: the point beyond the Planck time must have happened, after all. We just don't currently have the technology or vocabulary to measure it, and so attempting to assert some supernatural or divine force beyond it is completely unjustified. When you have an known unknown that's potentially filled with a series of other unknown unknowns, there's simply no reason to start putting labels on it.

I think I may have been bitten by WLC. I'll go see my doctor. I don't know if I'm making sense any more or just throwing scrabble tiles around.

Make sure you keep a couple copies of the God Delusion around; if you start affirming the consequent around the full moon then you may have become a WereCraig.

[Kingpin]

And what is that thing for which there is insufficient data? We can have an unclear picture of something while still acknowledging its existence.

We do acknowledge the existence of that thing: the point beyond the Planck time must have happened, after all. We just don't currently have the technology or vocabulary to measure it, and so attempting to assert some supernatural or divine force beyond it is completely unjustified. When you have an known unknown that's potentially filled with a series of other unknown unknowns, there's simply no reason to start putting labels on it.

I think I may have been bitten by WLC. I'll go see my doctor. I don't know if I'm making sense any more or just throwing scrabble tiles around.

Make sure you keep a couple copies of the God Delusion around; if you start affirming the consequent around the full moon then you may have become a WereCraig.

OMG Esq, this had me rolling.....

[robvalue]

Yeah, whacking on labels and putting a face on it is dumb. It's trying to oversimplify things by telling a story.

It's like that stupid "five ways" thing. "Let's call this thing God". No, let's not. And also, let's not assume the thing in each of the five parts is the same thing either. That's even pretending any of them are sound, which they are not.

People are always trying to sneak in magical shit.

You know... I understand that feeling of wanting there to be magic. Being an adult can be kind of dull; there's no dragons and wizards and stuff going on. I understand the desire to pretend a bunch of amazing stuff is happening.

Esq: Thanks, I now have it hanging round my neck along with the garlic. I'll be OK.