Can't prove the supernatural God

[Mister Agenda]

Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

It's so simple!

[Mister Agenda]

I don't know what a theist thinks natural means. What definition of natural includes things generated out of nothing by magic?

"Could not have come from natural causes" = "Argument from ignorance"

I think it's not reasonably possible to conclude that you have eliminated all natural causes, because that assumes we know about every natural cause. And how do you eliminate there being no efficient cause? [Efficient cause is the agency involved, as opposed to the material cause which is what it was fashioned from. Of course theists often conflate the two.]

Event e with unknown efficient cause c. It could be the case that c=no cause.

Known natural causes is the set N.

c is not a member of N.

Conclusion: c is a supernatural cause. This is doubly flawed, because we haven't eliminated the possibility of c being no efficient cause.

Science learns more stuff, and extends N to N+.

Now c is a member of N+.

Conclusion was wrong.

And what makes this "supernatural" cause any different? What separates the natural causes from supernatural?

The difference between supernatural cause and a natural cause would be the properties of the efficient cause. Properties of a natural efficient cause include physical, governed by the laws of physics, repeatedly observed,  etc. Properties of a supernatural efficient cause would include non-physical, not bound by the laws of physics, powerful enough to act on the natural world. Added to that is the reasonable assumption that there is a purpose for the act. 

Can you give an example of something that has a material cause and not an efficient cause? Even better, an example that might otherwise be considered a miracle by someone at some time.

So, your position seems to be that what we call miracles have naturalistic explanations that we just don't understand yet?  

1) Isn't that an argument from ignorance? 
2) Under that reasoning, why don't we see more of these 'miracles' if it is just a matter of misunderstanding the cause? The rarity of a miracle actually supports the premise that miracles happen. 
3) If you zero in on a particular miracle example, there are often circumstances that make the 'heretofore unknown natural causes' just at the right moment and in the right context ridiculously unlikely. 
4) Whether a miracle happened or not is a probabilistic question. The more evidence and context clues the higher the probability.

1. No. He did not claim that miracles have naturalistic explanations we just don't understand yet, he pointed out that there's no way to rule a natural cause out.
2. So if they didn't happen at all, that would be proof positive that they're real, and if they happened all the time, that would show they're not real! Seriously, I don't think you thought that through at all.
3. People have very bad intuition when it comes to probability. Incredibly unlikely things do and MUST happen, frequently. The odds of a given Bridge hand are hundreds of billions to one, but you can deal Bridge hands all day long. As they say, the odds of an event that has already happened are 1:1. I don't think either of us are well equipped to determine what is so ridiculously unlikely that a supernatural intervention is a more plausible explanation than coincidence.
4) The more it stands up to serious scrutiny, the higher the probability. And claimed miracles have a terrible track record for standing up to scrutiny.

Unless you have one example of such?

[Mister Agenda]

Mostly straw men and unsupported opinions. In your middle paragraph (bold), setting aside the fact that I don't know how the phrase "most likely" fits into your thesis, how would you 'know ' that no events had supernatural causes? The only way you could know that is if supernatural causes were not possible. If that is your reasoning, then you are arguing in a circle.

He never said that he knows that no events had supernatural causes, so there's that.

[SteveII]

The difference between supernatural cause and a natural cause would be the properties of the efficient cause. Properties of a natural efficient cause include physical, governed by the laws of physics, repeatedly observed,  etc. Properties of a supernatural efficient cause would include non-physical, not bound by the laws of physics, powerful enough to act on the natural world. Added to that is the reasonable assumption that there is a purpose for the act. 

Can you give an example of something that has a material cause and not an efficient cause? Even better, an example that might otherwise be considered a miracle by someone at some time.

So, your position seems to be that what we call miracles have naturalistic explanations that we just don't understand yet?  

1) Isn't that an argument from ignorance? 
2) Under that reasoning, why don't we see more of these 'miracles' if it is just a matter of misunderstanding the cause? The rarity of a miracle actually supports the premise that miracles happen. 
3) If you zero in on a particular miracle example, there are often circumstances that make the 'heretofore unknown natural causes' just at the right moment and in the right context ridiculously unlikely. 
4) Whether a miracle happened or not is a probabilistic question. The more evidence and context clues the higher the probability.

1. No. He did not claim that miracles have naturalistic explanations we just don't understand yet, he pointed out that there's no way to rule a natural cause out.
2. So if they didn't happen at all, that would be proof positive that they're real, and if they happened all the time, that would show they're not real! Seriously, I don't think you thought that through at all.
3. People have very bad intuition when it comes to probability. Incredibly unlikely things do and MUST happen, frequently. The odds of a given Bridge hand are hundreds of billions to one, but you can deal Bridge hands all day long. As they say, the odds of an event that has already happened are 1:1. I don't think either of us are well equipped to determine what is so ridiculously unlikely that a supernatural intervention is a more plausible explanation than coincidence.
4) The more it stands up to serious scrutiny, the higher the probability. And claimed miracles have a terrible track record for standing up to scrutiny.

Unless you have one example of such?

1. I concede that point. Rob did not make an argument from ignorance.
2. If you reason that event x may look like a miracle but is really just natural causes we don't understand, isn't it reasonable to ask why we don't see event x happen more often. By your own argument in #3, improbable things happen with regularity. 
3. I don't disagree with you comments on probability. However, I still contend that context and timing have weight and, depending on the circumstances, they can make heretofore unknown naturalistic causes less and less likely until a potential naturalistic cause approaches 0%.  (see my example from Matthew 9)
4. I think you are right for a lot of events that happen today. I think that claims of miracles are way more numerous than the evidence supports. However, for a variety of reasons, I choose to believe the content of the NT, while perhaps not 100% historically accurate, it is largely accurate including the events surrounding Christ and his claims. I am sure you have reasons to believe otherwise. I don't think either of us is irrational.

[Mister Agenda]

I think that was a reasonable response, Steve. Let me know if you want to get into the nitty gritty of the second one.

[SteveII]

He never said that he knows that no events had supernatural causes, so there's that.

...because that assertion is based on something we know (in particular, the fact that all known causes, events, and objects are natural, and none are "supernatural").

Perhaps I parsed his sentence wrong, but that still seems to be a positive claim of knowledge. Either way, I should not have responded to a post that ends with a jerkoff emoji.

[SteveII]

I think that was a reasonable response, Steve. Let me know if you want to get into the nitty gritty of the second one.

Sure. let's go. 

BTW, I learn something every time I engage on a subject (which is why I do it). My goal is not to convince, but to reasonably dialog and learn.

[SteveII]

This is why I can't debate you Steve, sorry. You effortlessly drift between a philosophical/scientific discussion and believing magical stories out of books. This has been my last attempt, as it always ends up this way.

No hard feelings. My style of response is evolving (ha..see that, I said I was evolving). Perhaps because our worldviews are so different, we don't see the issues the same and as a consequence respond differently enough to make it frustrating.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Mostly straw men and unsupported opinions. In your middle paragraph (bold), setting aside the fact that I don't know how the phrase "most likely" fits into your thesis, how would you 'know ' that no events had supernatural causes? The only way you could know that is if supernatural causes were not possible. If that is your reasoning, then you are arguing in a circle.

Talk about straw men...


I'm not talking about all causes, objects, and effects...I am only talking about known ones. Of the things we know, all are natural and none are supernatural. Because of that, it is reasonable to expect that anything that occurs in nature has a natural cause, and it is not reasonable to posit or believe in causes that are supernatural until the supernatural can be demonstrated with evidence.


Furthermore, it is not sufficient to dismiss my entire post as "straw men and unsupported opinions" without actually addressing any of it. If I have misrepresented you or the Bible, you should be able to explain how (like I did at the front of this post). If I've said something that isn't supported by evidence, what was it? Your reply looks more like a cop-out than a rebuttal.

[robvalue]

This is why I can't debate you Steve, sorry. You effortlessly drift between a philosophical/scientific discussion and believing magical stories out of books. This has been my last attempt, as it always ends up this way.

No hard feelings. My style of response is evolving (ha..see that, I said I was evolving). Perhaps because our worldviews are so different, we don't see the issues the same and as a consequence respond differently enough to make it frustrating.

That's very courteous of you, thank you

I don't wish any hard feelings. Your responses have been improving, I agree. You're far more thoughtful and polite than the vast majority of theists we get through here. I've tried very hard, but I just can't make a debate work with you. It's like we're playing chess and we can't agree on how the pieces move. This may be partly/totally my fault, I don't know. I will keep an eye on things for the future and how your debating develops, in case I feel I can try again.

I see you actually conceded a point above, as well. This is no small thing. The rate at which I've seen theists admit when they are wrong on this forum is extremely low. It's only happened a handful of times when I've debated people. So kudos for having the guts to own it. Even though I can't figure out how to debate you at the moment, I'm sending a rep your way! You response above to Mister Agenda was very good.