Atheism

[I_am_not_mafia]

[Succubus]

[RoadRunner79]

Ok no problem.... I just wanted to clarify that their is the issue of what the category error is, and why it’s wrong. Or if you want to change your mind on that statement that’s fine too.

Edit: didn’t mean to sound like I was rushing you.

Naturally caused events, and “super” or, “beyond” or, “outside” or, “seperate from”, naturally caused events are indeed two distinct categories.  Most importantly, they’re the inverse of one another.  We know that naturally caused events have natural causes, because they’re explainable, describable, demonstrable and repeatable within the natural world.  The supernatural?  I’m not even sure what that word means beyond, “not natural”.  What is a “not-natural” cause?

I think that I am wrong, but not about the category error. Attempting to draw conclusions about an allegedly supernatural event by holding it to the same evidentiary standards we use for naturally caused events is absolutely a category error.  That’s like trying to recite the alphabet using only numbers. But, I’ll retract my proposition that, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”  I don’t know how you could even coherently describe a supernatural cause, let alone have any evidence for it. Where the rubber hits the road for me, is that I don’t have any reason to think a “not-natural” thing could even be in existence at all.  That seems like a logically contradictory statement. What is a thing that is in existence, but not natural?  

Now, if you’re saying that the “supernatural” is really just an extension of the natural world, then we’re talking about a single category of things. Naturally caused things. In that case, we can expect some physical evidence for these extra-natural...(?) causes, and correctly apply our evidentiary hierarchy to draw reasonable conclusions about those claims.  Unfortunately though, you’re still faced with the problem that an alleged “extra-natural” event like the virgin birth is a claim that contradicts an overwhelming body of high-quality, scientific evidence to the contrary. All available evidence indicates that human semen is necessary for conception. Heresy, at the very bottom of that hierarchy, certainly wouldn’t even come close to overcoming or overriding that fact.

I see where you are saying that they are separate categories, but that doesn't make a category mistake.  Frankly, I'm not too hung up on calling something natural vs supernatural, unless there is a specific point to be made.   For instance I don't have any idea, what you are saying is the property that is being applied inappropriately.   Are you saying that evidence is incorrect, when considering the supernatural?   Then it would be incorrect, to be asking for evidence at all.   If I see someone go up and hug another, or I see someone go up and stab another, these are categorically different things.  But that category difference doesn't doesn't change the amount of evidence required to believe it.  A category error would be something like asking how much does God weigh?    God is immaterial, and doesn't have a property of weight, so the question doesn't even make sense to ask.  This is what a category error is.   And I still don't see how you are applying it here?  It seems to be just an assertion that these things are different, but not defining why or how these differences applies to you claims about the evidence.  It appears like a slippery slope, where anything could be denied in spite of evidence, and seems to be based more on feeling and subjective knowledge rather than evidence (but I could be misunderstanding you). 

You had said some other things, which I'm going to leave for later.  I think that when you get too much going on in a conversation, it is easy for important things to get lost in the shuffle, and less important things to take over.  In the end, nothing really gets discussed, and one keeps going around in circles coming back to those things that where not discussed.  I think that raising the bar for evidence on certain things seems like a main argument of yours; which is necessary to resolve before going on to other matters.

I look forward to hearing your input on this.

-Brian

[LadyForCamus]

A mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property

As I said above, if you are defining the ‘supernatural’ as the inverse of ‘natural’, ascribing it the property of ‘able to be evidenced’ is an error.  You cannot have evidence of a thing that is not able to be in evidence. The natural world is evident to us, which is why we are able to collect evidence about it.  If the supernatural is “not-natural” then it can’t be evident.

OTOH, as I said above:

If you’re saying that the “supernatural” is really just an extension of the natural world, then we’re talking about a single category of things. Naturally caused things.

So, that wouldn’t be a category mistake. 

In that case, we can expect some physical evidence for these extra-natural...(?) causes, and correctly apply our evidentiary hierarchy to draw reasonable conclusions about those claims.  Unfortunately though, you’re still faced with the problem that an alleged “extra-natural” event like the virgin birth is a claim that contradicts an overwhelming body of high-quality, scientific evidence to the contrary. All available evidence indicates that human semen is necessary for conception. Heresy, at the very bottom of that hierarchy, certainly wouldn’t even come close to overcoming or overriding that fact.

Whether or not a category mistake is being made is going to come down to how you’re defining “supernatural”.

[RoadRunner79]

A mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property

As I said above, if you are defining the ‘supernatural’ as the inverse of ‘natural’, ascribing it the property of ‘able to be evidenced’ is an error.  You cannot have evidence of a thing that is not able to be in evidence. The natural world is evident to us, which is why we are able to collect evidence about it.  If the supernatural is “not-natural” then it can’t be evident.

OTOH, as I said above:

If you’re saying that the “supernatural” is really just an extension of the natural world, then we’re talking about a single category of things. Naturally caused things.

So, that wouldn’t be a category mistake. 

In that case, we can expect some physical evidence for these extra-natural...(?) causes, and correctly apply our evidentiary hierarchy to draw reasonable conclusions about those claims.  Unfortunately though, you’re still faced with the problem that an alleged “extra-natural” event like the virgin birth is a claim that contradicts an overwhelming body of high-quality, scientific evidence to the contrary. All available evidence indicates that human semen is necessary for conception. Heresy, at the very bottom of that hierarchy, certainly wouldn’t even come close to overcoming or overriding that fact.

Whether or not a category mistake is being made is going to come down to how you’re defining “supernatural”.

Ok... so you appear to be saying, that it would be incorrect to even ask for evidence or the supernatural (as many atheists do) depending on ones definition.  As I have said, I don't get too caught up on the terms supernatural vs natural. And I believe that you are the one who brought up the term supernatural.   What I would consider supernatural, would be something outside of the natural universe.  In any case, if the thing, which is being described if it can interact with the natural universe, it would seem that it can have evidence of that interaction.  Something could be seen or experienced, which that information could be transmitted to others and be evidence for what is not able to be seen.  Or there could be other evidence left behind, which could be evaluated.  If there is evidence for something, and you reason that natural forces are incapable of producing this effect, then that leaves you with either some unknown natural occurrence, or something outside of the natural which caused the effect.  Either way, you are reasoning from the evidence as to a cause.  For some if God does exist, then they would define him as part of the natural.  For them supernatural seems to mean that it a priori does not exist, and if it does exist, then it is considered natural.   As I said, I'm not too concerned with quibbling over semantics here. 

If what you call supernatural can interact with the natural world, then it doesn't seem to be a category error, to evaluate the evidence from that and reason to a conclusion.  If you have evidence and can reasonably exclude the natural, then that would leave you with the supernatural or non-natural as an explanation.  From what you are saying, you wouldn't have any evidence to begin with, and any claims would not be from evidence.

---

@Lady

And to just to clarify; this seems to be different from your original premise that more evidence was required. That either evidence is not coherent with the supernatural, or that it should only require sufficient evidence, the same as anything else.

[Haipule]

As a Christian, I do NOT believe in the "supernatural". I do not trust that God is "supernatural". I believe that God is preternatural. Natural yes, but, really, really hard to explain. I do not believe that God operates beyond nature.

Bizarre, unexplainable events are just that: unexplainable but they are not unnatural or unknowable.

I think that the more we understand that mother nature is a field of many things in interplay the more we will understand her true nature. For now we have many opposing theories and nature is a crack whore.

[Crossless2.0]

. . . nature is a crack whore.

Perhaps so.

But when the sun hits her just right, or when she looks at me in the moonlight, well -- by God! -- crack whore or not . . . I'd do her.

[Haipule]

. . . nature is a crack whore.

Perhaps so.

But when the sun hits her just right, or when she looks at me in the moonlight, well -- by God! -- crack whore or not . . . I'd do her.

You are so right! I am a surfer and when the sun is shinning and the wind is from the perfect direction and the energy that produces waves is from the perfect direction and its as if the ocean floor, or reef, appears to have been groomed: we call that "The Perfect Day"!

The many field interactions at play there, in a symphony of perfection: I describe as an orgasm!

[Succubus]

Ok... so you appear to be saying, that it would be incorrect to even ask for evidence or the supernatural (as many atheists do) depending on ones definition.  As I have said, I don't get too caught up on the terms supernatural vs natural. And I believe that you are the one who brought up the term supernatural.   What I would consider supernatural, would be something outside of the natural universe.  In any case, if the thing, which is being described if it can interact with the natural universe, it would seem that it can have evidence of that interaction.  Something could be seen or experienced, which that information could be transmitted to others and be evidence for what is not able to be seen.  Or there could be other evidence left behind, which could be evaluated.  If there is evidence for something, and you reason that natural forces are incapable of producing this effect, then that leaves you with either some unknown natural occurrence, or something outside of the natural which caused the effect.  Either way, you are reasoning from the evidence as to a cause.  For some if God does exist, then they would define him as part of the natural.  For them supernatural seems to mean that it a priori does not exist, and if it does exist, then it is considered natural.   As I said, I'm not too concerned with quibbling over semantics here. 

If what you call supernatural can interact with the natural world, then it doesn't seem to be a category error, to evaluate the evidence from that and reason to a conclusion.  If you have evidence and can reasonably exclude the natural, then that would leave you with the supernatural or non-natural as an explanation.  From what you are saying, you wouldn't have any evidence to begin with, and any claims would not be from evidence.

RoadRunner. You can be hard to follow at times could you focus your posts on a single topic.

[Amarok]

He will just keep dodging defining the supernatural because as long as it remain vague he can just assert shit .