Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[GrandizerII]

A few things wrong with this.

And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural.

Oh, so you can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Why does this sound like an argument made out of convenience?

3. There is a nearly limitless number of examples you can dream up that if it happened, you would ascribe a supernatural cause. Why limbs? What gives you the idea that that is what we should expect to see? I can't think of one reason to think that this is what we should expect to see. It's a red herring.

You know why. Don't pretend there is not a good reason why this example specifically is continually brought up as an argument against the likelihood of the supernatural. The likelihood of limbs growing back spontaneously would be incredibly high under supernaturalism/theism, and yet that's not something we ever witness. Instead, all we witness as so-called "miracles" are phenomena easily explained by naturalism or involve invisible disorders or illnesses.

[Brian37]

Can you test a hypothesis about the supernatural? I've heard people argue on both sides of this. I've heard you cannot because you can use a supernatural being as the the explanation for anything if you think it is all powerful. I've also heard certain things like an amputee growing a limb back after someone prays for them in the moment would be good evidence. Where do you forumers stand on this?

Two books I recommend EVERYONE READ.

1. God The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger

2. The New Atheism also by Victor Stenger


FYI folks, the second title "The New Atheism" is a swipe at that stupid notion, because our species has had a long history of skepticism and there is nothing new about it.

[SteveII]

A few things wrong with this.

And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.

Well, it does seem to elude some of you. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural.

Oh, so you can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Why does this sound like an argument made out of convenience?

To answer your first question, yes. It is not an argument made out of convenience. It logically follows that you cannot use science, a disciple entirely focused on the natural world, to examine the supernatural world where it literally does not have one tool/concept/principle that applies. It is really amazing some people's trouble with definitions. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

3. There is a nearly limitless number of examples you can dream up that if it happened, you would ascribe a supernatural cause. Why limbs? What gives you the idea that that is what we should expect to see? I can't think of one reason to think that this is what we should expect to see. It's a red herring.

You know why. Don't pretend there is not a good reason why this example specifically is continually brought up as an argument against the likelihood of the supernatural. The likelihood of limbs growing back spontaneously would be incredibly high under supernaturalism/theism, and yet that's not something we ever witness. Instead, all we witness as so-called "miracles" are phenomena easily explained by naturalism or involve invisible disorders or illnesses.

You have simply asserted that regrowing of limbs would incredibly likely. That's a pretty bold statement that obviously must have reasons. So, why? Answer as completely as you can. Only then will we see if you have a point. Until then, we have nothing.

[Angrboda]

Can you test a hypothesis about the supernatural? I've heard people argue on both sides of this. I've heard you cannot because you can use a supernatural being as the the explanation for anything if you think it is all powerful. I've also heard certain things like an amputee growing a limb back after someone prays for them in the moment would be good evidence. Where do you forumers stand on this?

A few things wrong with this. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural. 

What can you infer from it? If you can't connect the dots between the supernatural and any supposed cause, such as God, then the supernatural can't be used as evidence for a specific cause. Out go all the miracles of the bible since you apparently can't link them to God. The supernatural then becomes simply the unexplained.

[GrandizerII]

And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.

Well, it does seem to elude some of you.

Easy to see faults in others' arguments rather than in one's own arguments.

Oh, so you can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Why does this sound like an argument made out of convenience?

To answer your first question, yes. It is not an argument made out of convenience. It logically follows that you cannot use science, a disciple entirely focused on the natural world, to examine the supernatural world where it literally does not have one tool/concept/principle that applies. It is really amazing some people's trouble with definitions. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

You didn't really address what I actually said. You can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Doesn't the fact that you can observe them naturally contradict the definition you just provided here? If not, then I haven't seen the argument yet as to why we can't test this force then. Just because it may be beyond scientific understanding doesn't mean it's beyond scientific testing. It is possible to demonstrate scientifically that something exists without understanding scientifically how it works.

You know why. Don't pretend there is not a good reason why this example specifically is continually brought up as an argument against the likelihood of the supernatural. The likelihood of limbs growing back spontaneously would be incredibly high under supernaturalism/theism, and yet that's not something we ever witness. Instead, all we witness as so-called "miracles" are phenomena easily explained by naturalism or involve invisible disorders or illnesses.

You have simply asserted that regrowing of limbs would incredibly likely. That's a pretty bold statement that obviously must have reasons. So, why? Answer as completely as you can. Only then will we see if you have a point. Until then, we have nothing.

Yes, if we're assuming the mainstream type of supernaturalism/theism of course, where God continually intervenes and heals people of cancer, blindness, heart problems, and such. Under such a hypothesis, it's pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen. Why is it then that it's not been observed at all, but we get people reporting they have been miraculously healed from the same health problems that would've either been minimized via suggestibility or comprise symptoms that are difficult to confirm visibly? This is a problem for your sort of theism, and under Bayesian thinking, it would be irrational to conclude that supernaturalism comes out on top in this case. Naturalism wins here easily. Amputees have never miraculously had their limbs grown most likely because supernaturalism isn't true.

[ignoramus]

Since, by definition, skeptics don't believe in woo (unevidenced claims), Then those who do are not skeptics.
Therefore, why are we trying to communicate with said people using logic, science and the scientific method?

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when a bunch of woo lovers are trying to convince each other why someone else's woo is not the real deal!

I can imagine it will involve lots of algebraic nested fallacies...

[Minimalist]

And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.

Well, it does seem to elude some of you. 

Amusing coming from a guy who believes in xtian shit.

[SteveII]

A few things wrong with this. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural. 

What can you infer from it?  If you can't connect the dots between the supernatural and any supposed cause, such as God, then the supernatural can't be used as evidence for a specific cause.  Out go all the miracles of the bible since you apparently can't link them to God.  The supernatural then becomes simply the unexplained.

Why can't you connect the dots in many cases? Context seems to be very important. I have written this before (I think to you actually):

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the probability that the cause was supernatural, might include:

1. Timing 
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

---

To answer your first question, yes. It is not an argument made out of convenience. It logically follows that you cannot use science, a disciple entirely focused on the natural world, to examine the supernatural world where it literally does not have one tool/concept/principle that applies. It is really amazing some people's trouble with definitions. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

You didn't really address what I actually said. You can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Doesn't the fact that you can observe them naturally contradict the definition you just provided here? If not, then I haven't seen the argument yet as to why we can't test this force then. Just because it may be beyond scientific understanding doesn't mean it's beyond scientific testing. It is possible to demonstrate scientifically that something exists without understanding scientifically how it works.

You can observe the effects in the natural world. The definition clearly states "attributed to". That is another way of saying "cause". Regarding your last two sentences, you are not getting it. It is not "beyond scientific understanding", it is another category where science does not nor ever will apply. You final sentence is so wrong because you are still confused on the definition of the word. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definitions and what those definitions entail. 

You have simply asserted that regrowing of limbs would incredibly likely. That's a pretty bold statement that obviously must have reasons. So, why? Answer as completely as you can. Only then will we see if you have a point. Until then, we have nothing.

Yes, if we're assuming the mainstream type of supernaturalism/theism of course, where God continually intervenes and heals people of cancer, blindness, heart problems, and such. Under such a hypothesis, it's pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen. Why is it then that it's not been observed at all, but we get people reporting they have been miraculously healed from the same health problems that would've either been minimized via suggestibility or comprise symptoms that are difficult to confirm visibly? This is a problem for your sort of theism, and under Bayesian thinking, it would be irrational to conclude that supernaturalism comes out on top in this case. Naturalism wins here easily. Amputees have never miraculously had their limbs grown most likely because supernaturalism isn't true.

You did not connect your first sentence to your second with anything resembling a reason. What you did was infer that God's purpose was to heal people and so we should also see this other type of "healing" - regrowing limbs. But your inference is wrong. God's purpose is not to heal people for the sake of healing people. These are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events, are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) significance. Additionally, God could extend someone's life for a reason that might not be apparent for a hundred years (the butterfly effect). Under this understanding of "healing miracles", it is definitely not "pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen."

[I_am_not_mafia]

A few things wrong with this. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural. 

How come you can't test a hypothesis of the supernatural using natural tools yet you can observe it using your natural eyes and senses?

Or do you have supernatural eyes? Maybe even spidey-senses?

Sounds like special pleading to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ironically...Steve got that entirely right for the wrong reason.  All of those things were reasons for miracle -stories-.....none of them were miracles that occurred, nor did they need to be in order to accomplish his 1-6.  

Other mythologies use miracles stories in precisely the same way.

---

Or do you have supernatural eyes? 

Something I've always wondered about soul and spirit and afterlife stories.  They see without eyes, taste without a tongue, feel without skin, hear without ears..etc.  Makes the meat machinery kind of redundant..but hey, what does a soulless bioautomaton like me know.

Maybe that;s the solution to the ridiculous mistep, anyway? The reason that godometers don't work is that they're natural and can't see gods..even though our redundant spirit eyes can. Sort of like how crazy people swear there's a pink fucking elephant that no camera can detect..right in front of them. Maybe ghost eyes can be defective, to...in order to explain why every ghost eye doesn't see gods, or ethereal pink elephants.