Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

Because our tools and abilities (which themselves are bases in the natural world) are only useful in observing natural states of affairs. If there is a supernatural (something not in the natural world), it would be by definition, beyond our abilities to examine. So a supernatural cause would be, by definition, beyond our ability to examine. 

We are left with only observing the natural effect. We can rationally infer a supernatural cause if the probability of there being a natural cause is sufficiently low. 

You don't know how things are observed do you. It's like you think that information is magically transmitted from an object to your brain. You're argument relies on your continued ignorance.

I was not aware I had even made an argument. We are talking about definitions and what those definitions mean. 

Regardless of what it is, you can only observe things based on how it affects the parts of nature that our brains can sense (air pressure, photons etc), as has been pointed out to you twice now (now three times because I am sure this won't be the last time). So using your definition of supernatural, it both cannot be observed by definition of it being supernatural, but can be observed because it affects natural things just like anything else.

No problem with your first sentence. Your last sentence is incorrect. You can ONLY observe the effect. You cannot observe the supernatural. Why is this concept so hard?

Not only is there no evidence that the supernatural exists, but you can't even come up with a definition that distinguishes it from the natural.

And I think we all know how this thread will proceed. You'll ignore this point and continue pasting the same definition and repeating yourself while becoming more arrogant. So next question.

How is the supernatural different from the natural if both can only be observed by how they affect the nature that we can sense?

The difference is in the CAUSE. There are natural causes and supernatural causes. Two categories of causes. Both result in effects in the natural world--otherwise we would not be aware of them. How do we distinguish? There are some effects that cannot be caused by naturalistic causes. Need an example to discuss, here is one. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Let's just say you were there and this happened (and you knew the man to be paralyzed). Are you going to say we can only see the effect, so there is no difference between a naturalistic explanation and a supernatural explanation? Regardless, the scenario illustrates the concept of the difference between categories of causes and the visible effect--even if you don't believe it to be true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stories in books are caused by people with pen and paper, Steve.  

Is that the bar for the supernatural..people with pens and paper...........?

[brewer]

Supernatural causes in the bible, left and right for centuries. It's amazing that all supernatural causes only attributable to a god seem to have disappeared as of late.

[polymath257]

Regardless of what it is, you can only observe things based on how it affects the parts of nature that our brains can sense (air pressure, photons etc), as has been pointed out to you twice now (now three times because I am sure this won't be the last time). So using your definition of supernatural, it both cannot be observed by definition of it being supernatural, but can be observed because it affects natural things just like anything else.

No problem with your first sentence. Your last sentence is incorrect. You can ONLY observe the effect. You cannot observe the supernatural. Why is this concept so hard?

Observing the effect *is* observing the cause of that effect. My examples show how this happens.

Not only is there no evidence that the supernatural exists, but you can't even come up with a definition that distinguishes it from the natural.

And I think we all know how this thread will proceed. You'll ignore this point and continue pasting the same definition and repeating yourself while becoming more arrogant. So next question.

How is the supernatural different from the natural if both can only be observed by how they affect the nature that we can sense?

The difference is in the CAUSE. There are natural causes and supernatural causes. Two categories of causes. Both result in effects in the natural world--otherwise we would not be aware of them. How do we distinguish? There are some effects that cannot be caused by naturalistic causes. Need an example to discuss, here is one. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Let's just say you were there and this happened (and you knew the man to be paralyzed). Are you going to say we can only see the effect, so there is no difference between a naturalistic explanation and a supernatural explanation? Regardless, the scenario illustrates the concept of the difference between categories of causes and the visible effect--even if you don't believe it to be true.

If this story is valid, it would be a detection of the supernatural. And we could use such detections to build up a pattern of behavior of the supernatural, which is how science works.

yes, i am going to say there is no difference between the evidence for a supernatural and the evidence for a natural. They are BOTH based on observations of effects and the analysis of what could be the cause of those effects. Any patterns are discerned by hypothesis formation and testing.

The only way science would NOT be applicable is if the effects are indistinguishable from randomness, in which case, the default is simple randomness.

[I_am_not_mafia]

How is the supernatural different from the natural if both can only be observed by how they affect the nature that we can sense?

The difference is in the CAUSE. There are natural causes and supernatural causes. Two categories of causes. Both result in effects in the natural world--otherwise we would not be aware of them. How do we distinguish? There are some effects that cannot be caused by naturalistic causes.

My italics. You are making an arbitrary distinction between a natural cause and a supernatural cause.

How is a supernatural cause different from a natural cause if both affect the nature that we can sense?

Need an example to discuss, here is one. 

Yeah, not even going to bother reading the rest.

[robvalue]

Supernatural is things that aren't natural... what is natural then? Things that aren't supernatural.

Nature is things that follow the laws of nature! That tells us nothing. Everything follows the laws that apply to it.

Yeah, I know some people do better than that, but some don't.

[Aegon]

The Amazing Randi has a $1 million challenge for testing claims of psychic powers under lab conditions.  So far no one has claimed it.

Randi is a fraud that refuses pay-up. Just ask Sheldrake...

Pay up for what? Who do you think has demonstrated psychic ability to him without him paying up?

[KevinM1]

"There are natural causes and supernatural causes...."

You have yet to demonstrate the latter.  You keep insisting that it exists due to some hypothetical natural event having a statistically low chance of having a natural cause, which is a completely unwarranted conclusion.  "I don't see how hypothetical event x could happen naturally, therefore the supernatural" is the definition of the God of the Gaps fallacy.

And, no, the Bible isn't proof of it, either.  For the millionth time, the Bible is the claim.  There's absolutely 0 credible evidence that any of the miracles within actually occurred.  And, no, neither the popularity of the religion nor the fervor of some of its adherents lends veracity to the tales.

You're a broken record of fallacies, one piled on top of the next.  And you have the gall to deride us for our lack of critical thinking skills.  Utterly laughable.

[JackRussell]

If the supernatural interacts with the natural it is observable.

Observable enters the realm of science.

Science should then be able to say " I have no fucking idea.'

Hasn't really happened so far; their are always ideas.

And why should apes understand everything.

[robvalue]

Let's be perfectly honest. "Supernatural" is "magic" for adults.

I can't come up with a scientific definition for "magic" either, though. "Impossible stuff happening" is the closest, and shows what an absurd idea the whole thing is. We all know what they say about technology and magic.