Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[Belacqua]

The only conclusion I can reach is that you need the supernatural to exist as more than a concept.

You are free to fantasize as you wish.

I guess it's easier to make up shit answers than to ask questions and find out the truth.

[LadyForCamus]

By what method could we do this? How could you rule out a cause you haven’t learned about yet?

Granted, I think that the people opposing me on this thread don't agree that the statement "all questions are answerable by science" can be falsified. 

They assume a priori that the only things there are in the world are things that science can analyze. As we've seen, they deny outright the existence of anything else. For them, "it can be analyzed by science" is the equivalent of "it exists." 

It's a version of Berkeley, I guess. Esse est percipi gets a little update. 

To them, their statement is not falsifiable. Therefore it's not science. 

But I've already addressed this. To say that by definition everything has a natural explanation, even if we don't know what the explanation will be or could be, is just begging the question. It's assuming something that can't be proved. 

I'm fine with it, as I say. It may well be true that there is nothing supernatural. Given my own limited experience, I suspect there's no such thing as the supernatural. (Even God, if it existed, would be natural, in the sense that it is and acts only according to its nature.) But as I say the universe is big and science is set up to find certain things and not others. If supernatural stuff were happening all around us, many people would deny it, given their metaphysical commitment against it. My interlocutors on this thread prove that. So the degree to which people are adamant about the non-existence of the supernatural, and offended that someone else might say "maybe," they are committed to an unprovable belief, and lack skepticism. 

(It's funny how the word "skepticism" has changed. It used to mean doubtful and demanding more proof. Now it seems to mean "completely certain about the non-existence of certain things.")

I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not understanding you. I’m not interested in what your opponents think of what you think. I’m interested in your line of reasoning. You said the position: “All questions are answerable by science,” is a falsifiable one. I’m asking you how it could/would be falsified (by what method), and how that falsification could be demonstrated. Please, and thank you.

[Belacqua]

I’m asking you how it could/would be falsified (by what method), and how that falsification could be demonstrated.

Earlier, I assumed that the proposition could be falsified in the normal way: by finding a counterexample. 

So if we found something that couldn't be explained by science, then we'd know that not everything can be explained by science. 

Now I see that promissory naturalism doesn't accept the existence of things that can't be explained by science. So I see that the proposition can't be falsified. 


There's a parallel to the example we were using in the thread about falsification. I gave the example of the Loch Ness monster. The statement, "no such monster exists" is falsifiable, because if you found the monster the statement would be falsified. But the statement "there is a monster" is not falsifiable because no matter how much we look and don't find a monster, True Believers can assert that we just haven't found it yet. (Obviously, the monster uses Jedi mind tricks like Alec Guiness in the first Star Wars. When the researchers find it, the monster waves its hand and says: "I am not the monster you're looking for.")

Likewise, we could line up a million questions unanswered by science, and the True Believers would say that we just haven't found the answer yet. But there absolutely has to be one. We just know it.

So I guess I changed my mind. The statement isn't falsifiable. 

Personally, I accept the possibility that something inexplicable to science might exist. Obviously, value statements and metaphysical statements are of this type, and there may be others. Some of them may be fundamental to how nature works. I acknowledge this is speculation. But I have to hold open the possibility that I don't know everything.

[possibletarian]

I’m asking you how it could/would be falsified (by what method), and how that falsification could be demonstrated.

Earlier, I assumed that the proposition could be falsified in the normal way: by finding a counterexample. 

So if we found something that couldn't be explained by science, then we'd know that not everything can be explained by science. 

Now I see that promissory naturalism doesn't accept the existence of things that can't be explained by science. So I see that the proposition can't be falsified. 


There's a parallel to the example we were using in the thread about falsification. I gave the example of the Loch Ness monster. The statement, "no such monster exists" is falsifiable, because if you found the monster the statement would be falsified. But the statement "there is a monster" is not falsifiable because no matter how much we look and don't find a monster, True Believers can assert that we just haven't found it yet. (Obviously, the monster uses Jedi mind tricks like Alec Guiness in the first Star Wars. When the researchers find it, the monster waves its hand and says: "I am not the monster you're looking for.")

Likewise, we could line up a million questions unanswered by science, and the True Believers would say that we just haven't found the answer yet. But there absolutely has to be one. We just know it.

So I guess I changed my mind. The statement isn't falsifiable. 

Personally, I accept the possibility that something inexplicable to science might exist. Obviously, value statements and metaphysical statements are of this type, and there may be others. Some of them may be fundamental to how nature works. I acknowledge this is speculation. But I have to hold open the possibility that I don't know everything.

I never seen such a ridiculous reply,

Yes you would have to show or have good reason to believe something existed, and have some way of observing it before even beginning to ask or answer questions about it.

I suspect everyone here also accepts that some things may never be answered by science, they just don't make an unjustifiable leap to non-natural explanations.

Everyone here will also admit they don't know now or will ever know everything, to have something you cannot explain does not mean there is no explanation (there always is)  simply that you don't know it.

Now, perhaps you could tell us why in all these scenarios you consider a non~natural explanation ?

---

The only conclusion I can reach is that you need the supernatural to exist as more than a concept.

You are free to fantasize as you wish.

I guess it's easier to make up shit answers than to ask questions and find out the truth.

Maybe come back when you have found the truth, then explain it to us.
Perhaps you could give us the formula you are using to asses if a non~natural world exists and we could investigate ourselves.

[brewer]

The only conclusion I can reach is that you need the supernatural to exist as more than a concept.

You are free to fantasize as you wish.

I guess it's easier to make up shit answers than to ask questions and find out the truth.

You asked, I answered based on my observations of your posts and behavior here. You can call my conclusion shit if you want.

After all of our interactions why should I need to ask questions? And it's not like you've been all that forthcoming when talking about yourself.

Sigh, OK, I'll ask, what is your personal truth regarding your beliefs/religion? And remember, the "truth" is subjective. What you tell me will probably be considered in light of your past posts.

[Belacqua]

After all of our interactions why should I need to ask questions?

Because your imaginings have not been successful.

And it's not like you've been all that forthcoming when talking about yourself. 

I'm not particularly interesting. I don't see why I should be the topic here. Metaphysics is interesting.

Sometimes people want to make me the topic when I won't agree with them. Then the talk turns to my shady character and obviously fraudulent motives. 

Sigh, OK,  I'll ask, what is your personal truth regarding your beliefs/religion? And remember, the "truth" is subjective. What you tell me will probably be considered in light of your past posts.

One thing I believe is that the truth is not subjective. There is something that is true whether we believe it or not.

So when I say "that's true," I think I should be able to justify my assertions. I think that grownups who want to work toward the truth should be willing to do this.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet the grownup imploring us to do this has yet to do it himself.

Meanwhile, he's babbling about a kind of unfalsifiable proposition that is only unfalsifiable in that people will refuse to entertain the fact that their superstitions aren't true. Fucking clown.

[Succubus#2]

For reasons that he refuses to acknowledge Bell needs the supernatural to exist as more than a narrative, more than a concept.  

Please stop making up shit about what I "need." What you say is not true.

I think we should believe things that can be proven. You can't prove your assertion. Don't start insulting me as a way to avoid acknowledging this.

---

People fail to realise just how 'Well connected' the artists of that day realy were to the more esoteric things happening at the times.

A very smart guy I know is the same age as me, and was also raised in a small town with no culture. He points out in his memoirs how pop culture in those days -- more than now -- made comfortable reference to high-level things. 

He recalls ads he saw in Life Magazine that assumed the reader would know about Dostoevsky, and references in The Addams Family to baroque music, etc. I remember similar things. There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon where a famous symphonic conductor appeared, identified only by first name. Kids all over America must have yelled, "Mom, who is Leopold?" And the cartoon writers assumed that mom would know. Those little hints were important for little kids who could pick up on them. 

I wonder if there is anything like that in pop culture now. The Big Bang Show, which was supposedly about smart people, limited its culture to comic books. It's anti-intellectual, assuming that smart people are satisfied with kid stuff.

I'll be surprised and alarmed if I haven't been Ninja'd here but this post looks very much like a live action real time meltdown. Impeccable grammar but utterly devoid of content, style over substance is all I see.

Bel, you're not a thinker you're a dreamer, an anachronism. Everything about you screams new agey pop philosophy. The sort of shite I endured much of and agreed with in the 70s, hoping for a knickers on the floor encounter, event, situation, experiencing.
But then to your credit I don't recall you ever referring to or quoting any of the post modernist wankers; Derrida, Foucault et al. But hay, that's faint praise.
Ok, time to get back in character.

The supernatural? Define it or shut fucking up!
If you can't define it then what is it you're defending?

Everything from Astrotherapy to Zombies needs an energy source in order to function. What is that energy? And why hasn't this thing spotted it?



Show your work.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m asking you how it could/would be falsified (by what method), and how that falsification could be demonstrated.

Earlier, I assumed that the proposition could be falsified in the normal way: by finding a counterexample.

Give a counter example, and how it can potentially be demonstrated.

So if we found something that couldn't be explained by science-

And again...how can we determine that something is not able to be explained by science? What would be the method for reaching this conclusion?

[brewer]

After all of our interactions why should I need to ask questions?

Because your imaginings have not been successful.

And it's not like you've been all that forthcoming when talking about yourself. 

I'm not particularly interesting. I don't see why I should be the topic here. Metaphysics is interesting.

Sometimes people want to make me the topic when I won't agree with them. Then the talk turns to my shady character and obviously fraudulent motives. 

Sigh, OK,  I'll ask, what is your personal truth regarding your beliefs/religion? And remember, the "truth" is subjective. What you tell me will probably be considered in light of your past posts.

One thing I believe is that the truth is not subjective. There is something that is true whether we believe it or not.

So when I say "that's true," I think I should be able to justify my assertions. I think that grownups who want to work toward the truth should be willing to do this.

I find that honest people are usually willing to talk about themselves.

And if I don't agree with your assertions and/or justifications what is the truth then? You'll insist yours is the truth, I'll insist mine is. I wonder what that is called?

Don't confuse truth with fact.

You asked me to ask you, I did, and this is your response. You won't fool me again.

My conclusions regarding you and the supernatural stand.