An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[The Omnissiunt One]

What, I have to make a case for the non materialism of God? To do that I'd have to first destroy the God contruct and re-invent him as material. You're not addressing the subject here.

You should at least try and demonstrate that the concept of non-materialism is coherent. Also, are you saying that the argument presupposes materialism, and is therefore weak, or that it argues in favour of materialism and is therefore weak? I wasn't entirely sure.

[Purple Rabbit]

It seems to me that all of your arguments plead to materialism, even the philosophical ones, which makes them more than weak.

Even if one accepts that this is a plea for materialism, it does not follow that an argumment therefore becomes "weak".

What, I have to make a case for the non materialism of God? To do that I'd have to first destroy the God contruct and re-invent him as material. You're not addressing the subject here.

I pointed out a fallacy in your reasoning, I did not address the content of your premises. There is a difference, you know. I certainly did not urge you to make a case for the non-materialism of god. So please address the subject of my statement if you are in denial of it.

---

What, I have to make a case for the non materialism of God? To do that I'd have to first destroy the God contruct and re-invent him as material. You're not addressing the subject here.

You should at least try and demonstrate that the concept of non-materialism is coherent. Also, are you saying that the argument presupposes materialism, and is therefore weak, or that it argues in favour of materialism and is therefore weak? I wasn't entirely sure.

Non-materialism is coherent since many examples of non-material exist. Take language for instance. Without non-materialism the concept of the word coherent could not have coherent meaning. Is supernatural the thing you are referring to?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Non-materialism is coherent since many examples of non-material exist. Take language for instance. Without non-materialism the concept of the word coherent could not have coherent meaning. Is supernatural the thing you are referring to?

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry.

[fr0d0]

I pointed out a fallacy in your reasoning, I did not address the content of your premises. There is a difference, you know. I certainly did not urge you to make a case for the non-materialism of god. So please address the subject of my statement if you are in denial of it.

Seems simple to me Rabbit: You're making assumptions based on materialism of a non material subject.

---

You should at least try and demonstrate that the concept of non-materialism is coherent. Also, are you saying that the argument presupposes materialism, and is therefore weak, or that it argues in favour of materialism and is therefore weak? I wasn't entirely sure.

Yes I'm saying it presupposes materialism where none is presented.

[Purple Rabbit]

I pointed out a fallacy in your reasoning, I did not address the content of your premises. There is a difference, you know. I certainly did not urge you to make a case for the non-materialism of god. So please address the subject of my statement if you are in denial of it.

Seems simple to me Rabbit: You're making assumptions based on materialism of a non material subject.

---

Where is that exactly?

[fr0d0]

Where is that exactly?

You're right, we can't rule out the existence of the supernatural. But when we have not a shred of evidence to look that way, it is futile to fabulate about it. For, given the time to do so, I could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives, but would have no clue on what basis to choose one.

[Purple Rabbit]

Where is that exactly?

You're right, we can't rule out the existence of the supernatural. But when we have not a shred of evidence to look that way, it is futile to fabulate about it. For, given the time to do so, I could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives, but would have no clue on what basis to choose one.

So where exactly in this quote do you see me making assumptions based on materialism of a non material subject?

[fr0d0]

Where is that exactly?

You're right, we can't rule out the existence of the supernatural. But when we have not a shred of evidence to look that way, it is futile to fabulate about it. For, given the time to do so, I could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives, but would have no clue on what basis to choose one.

So where exactly in this quote do you see me making assumptions based on materialism of a non material subject?

You dismiss the "existence of the supernatural" because there is not "a shred of evidence" (+1) making it "futile to fabulate about" because you "could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives" "but would have no clue on what basis to choose one" (+2)

Twice there?

[Caecilian]

The first section of your post seems to me to point towards Kim's argument being valid- extra dimensions don't help for more or less the same reasons that spatializing the soul doesn't help.

Quite the contrary. It shows that Kim's argument is invalidated by string theory because in string theory there are other spatial dimensions that (in principle) can "carry" causal chains undetectable for us.

I disagree. As I said in one of my previous posts, it seems to me that this 'alternative causation' makes the 'supernatural' into a natural category (amenable to scientific study being the hallmark of the natural).

@fr0d0:

You seem to be saying that asking for evidence for supernatural/ immaterial phenomena is somehow special pleading for materialism. So in your view, is it the case that there can be no evidence for supernatural phenomena, ever?

If so, then fine. We can dismiss the supernatural out of hand.

[Purple Rabbit]

You dismiss the "existence of the supernatural" because there is not "a shred of evidence" (+1) making it "futile to fabulate about" because you "could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives" "but would have no clue on what basis to choose one" (+2)

Twice there?

You did learn to read, didn't you?

1) It says "we can't rule out" in there doesn't it? Any idea why it is in there? Anyway, no assumption there.

2) I have no shred of evidence for the natural, so there is no assumption there. If you have a shred like that please bring it forward any time so we can evaluate it.

3) Because I have no shred on X, I do not make assumptions about X. Not on how X might affect reality. Not on the existence or non-existence of X. This is quite straightforward too. From the principle of parsimony I derive that it would be redundant to make any assumption if I have no shred of evidence of X. Bottom line: no assumption being made there.

Compare this to how science deals with god: there is no single statement about god in science. Not a statement about his non-existence, not a statement about his existence. There is simply no god in the equations. If you have a better proposal on how to not make assumption on something please bring it forward.

4) the natural does not equal the material, the supernatural does not equal the non-material.

---

I disagree. As I said in one of my previous posts, it seems to me that this 'alternative causation' makes the 'supernatural' into a natural category (amenable to scientific study being the hallmark of the natural).

That's an interesting proposal, but it's faulty and a corruption of language because it redefines a term to prove a point in hindsight.

If you say that you exclude the supernatural than you leave open the possibility that there is a phenomenon X that might be considered part of "the supernatural". So X might be labeled as a supernatural concept. The supernatural here is defined as not being part of the natural. It is the negation of the natural. But the natural in short is that what is under (possible) investigation of science. That what we can know of, conforms to a pattern and somehow have access to.

But if Y is a phenomenon we knowingly or unknowingly never can have acccess to, than there is no distinction between the hypothesized natural version of Y and the supernatural version of Y. As is the current situation for string theory since it isn't evidenced.

Please observe that your definition of the natural (amenable to scientific study) does not suffice to settle the dispute since this without further criterions in the end is an argument from authorithy (it ultimately relies on the authority with some party to label it scientific). Is mathematics scientific study? It cannot be evidenced from reality but it sure as hell is amenable to scientific study.

So, I wonder, according to you is string theory supernatural now and maybe natural tomorrow?

If so, than to say so is a redefinition of terms and comparing the old definition with the new one a logical impossibility.

You could use other definitions of naturalism, for instance
1) Equate it to monism, the idea that there is one type of stuff. Than if we ever find evidence for some other stuff (dualism), the supernatural will be evidenced.
2) That's what logically consistent and coherent with natural phenomna we already know

But these definitions put restrictions on the natural that to my taste go beyond the intended meaning.