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

[Peebothuhlu]

People don't see X-rays or into the infra-red either.

This is correct. It is not in our natures to see outside of the visible light spectrum. We have come up with repeatable empirical ways to analyze the bits we can't see.

Also... your analogy isn't rerally helping explain what the 'Supernatural' is.

I haven't made any analogies. I've explained how I'm using the word and given some examples of what would be supernatural.

So far all I can grok is that it's synonimous for 'I/We don't know yet."..... 

Things that are natural, but so far unexplained, would not be supernatural. 

Some people assume that everything in the world could be explained by science, with sufficient time and research funding. But this is not something that science can prove. People who are confident of this are making a faith-based statement. It may be true, but we can't know.

Oh, cool.

So basically you're running with 'I don't know' and 'There's a gap in what we know'.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

So basically you're running with 'I don't know' and 'There's a gap in what we know'.

I think it would be more correct to say that there's a tiny tiny gap in our ignorance.

And because our methods are good at explaining some things, some people make the mistake of concluding that the same methods can explain everything.

[polymath257]

You haven't actually described what it 'Is'.

Cheers.

Not at work.

Supernatural events are those which occur "over and above" the nature of a thing. 

Science tells us that frogs lack the mental capacity and vocal structure to sing Mozart. If a frog did that, it would be over and above its nature.

If a frog did that, we would start studying how and why it did that. Attributing it to being 'supernatural' adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. For that matter, talking baout the 'nature' of a frog also adds nothing to the discussion.

---

But it would be natural just abnormal

According to the definition I'm using, it would be supernatural. I've explained why.

Why do you say that a frog doing what a frog can't do would be natural?

 and certainly an outlier but being an outlier does not make something unnatural.

Outliers, as I understand it, are possible but rare. They are still within the bounds of science, in that they can be tested through repeatable empirical methods. 

You've introduced a new term here: unnatural. What do you mean by this?

 AGAIN I'll ask why should we give credence to an idea such as supernatural without any supporting evidence?

I'm not saying you should believe in the supernatural. 

I'm saying that when you talk about "any supporting evidence" you are begging the question, since the evidence you accept is the kind that doesn't address things which are non-repeatable and non-empirical.

1. If a frog is doing it, clearly a frog *can* do it.
The question is how and why, not if. So, *if* you think the frog can't sing 'by its nature' and yet it is actually singing, then you are wrong about its nature. It *can* sing.

2. I'm trying to imagine what would be considered as evidence of  supernatural. By your admission, rare events are not enough. The event has to be singular, and not even a rare case of an actual natural law.

The problem is that singular cases would be left as puzzles. They would, almost by definition, have no explanation. And if, after we have found ALL the laws of physics, there is still no explanation, then and only then could we say it isn't natural.

But what is far more likely is that thesingular event will become part of a modified theory (people are quite inventive).

---

People can and do conjecture about the future all the time.

Conjecturing about the future is not seeing the future. Just as conjecturing about what's in my pocket is not seeing it. 

Your objection here is strange. Maybe after you finish breakfast you can pay more attention.

I can see the future. I know there will be an eclipse of the sun on April 8, 2024. The path of the moon will start in the Pacific ocean, and move across Mexico and into the US, crossing the path of the one a few years ago in Southern Illinois. If you want, I can give you details down to the minute.

[Belacqua]

If a frog did that, we would start studying how and why it did that.

Science is limited to methodological naturalism. If scientists could discover why a frog sang Mozart, then the reason would not be supernatural. 

Attributing it to being 'supernatural' adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

If no natural explanation is possible, then it wouldn't be natural.

 For that matter, talking baout the 'nature' of a frog also adds nothing to the discussion.

Every summer there are thousands of frogs in the rice paddies down the mountain from where I live. They have characteristics and regularities. They are made of frog stuff, they do frog things. There are variations, within limits. That is their nature. They cannot be made of solid lead, be a million miles long, and live in the center of the sun -- that is not their nature. 

There's nothing odd or spooky about saying something has a nature. It's just the word to say that it is what it is. Science tells us what the nature of the frog is. That's science's job. If science tells us that it is impossible for a frog to sing the duet from Don Giovanni, then it isn't natural for a frog to do that.

[brewer]

You haven't actually described what it 'Is'.

Cheers.

Not at work.

Supernatural events are those which occur "over and above" the nature of a thing. 

Science tells us that frogs lack the mental capacity and vocal structure to sing Mozart. If a frog did that, it would be over and above its nature.

The discussion have devolved into "what if".

[Rhizomorph13]

What about subnatural or zeitranatural or even quadranatural

I could affix prefixes all day but why would we attribute truth to an untestable thing?

Is that a full-spectrum truth or a half truth?

It is a full spectrum truth with extra truth sauce before doing a half-gainer into the pool of truth!

---

But it would be natural just abnormal

According to the definition I'm using, it would be supernatural. I've explained why.

Why do you say that a frog doing what a frog can't do would be natural?

 and certainly an outlier but being an outlier does not make something unnatural.

Outliers, as I understand it, are possible but rare. They are still within the bounds of science, in that they can be tested through repeatable empirical methods. 

You've introduced a new term here: unnatural. What do you mean by this?

 AGAIN I'll ask why should we give credence to an idea such as supernatural without any supporting evidence?

I'm not saying you should believe in the supernatural. 

I'm saying that when you talk about "any supporting evidence" you are begging the question, since the evidence you accept is the kind that doesn't address things which are non-repeatable and non-empirical.

Ahh so it is a definitions game. I would counter with my definition of natural which would be whatever is observed (Not necessarily with eyes or ears) is natural. So if a frog threw its asshole against the wall and jumped through it to another dimension and I saw it happen I would say we have a lot to learn about the true nature of frogs!

If a thing is, then it is natural. If God exists it is natural, I would argue that it would constitute the anchor point of all of nature from most definitions of god that I know.

[polymath257]

If a frog did that, we would start studying how and why it did that.

Science is limited to methodological naturalism. If scientists could discover why a frog sang Mozart, then the reason would not be supernatural.

And how would you know if they are unable to do this? It isn't uncommon for there to be unanswered questions for decades. For example, is dark matter supernatural? It almost seems to be by your definition.

Science does NOT rely 'methodological naturalism' as you (and others) say. It merely relies on the scientific method: observation, proposing hypotheses that can be tested, testing said hypotheses (even better if there are several competing hypotheses), and eliminating/modifying those that don't pass the tests.

The core of science is being able to test. And if something *can't* be tested, then it is meaningless as an explanation.

Attributing it to being 'supernatural' adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.



If no natural explanation is possible, then it wouldn't be natural.

And how you you know whether a 'natural' explanation is possible?

 For that matter, talking baout the 'nature' of a frog also adds nothing to the discussion.

Every summer there are thousands of frogs in the rice paddies down the mountain from where I live. They have characteristics and regularities. They are made of frog stuff, they do frog things. There are variations, within limits. That is their nature. They cannot be made of solid lead, be a million miles long, and live in the center of the sun -- that is not their nature. 

There's nothing odd or spooky about saying something has a nature. It's just the word to say that it is what it is. Science tells us what the nature of the frog is. That's science's job. If science tells us that it is impossible for a frog to sing the duet from Don Giovanni, then it isn't natural for a frog to do that.

And if we find an outlier that can sing Mozart, we adapt our understanding based on that evidence. And, in that case, that particular frog's 'nature' would include singing Mozart.

[Rahn127]

One could say that it's not in man's natural state to be gullible.
Gullibility would then be supernatural.

Believing that things exist without any evidence of existence could be called supernatural.

It would be supernatural to hold a belief in the supernatural.

[Mr Greene]

But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

The scientific method works with things that can be studied through repeated empirical evidence. 

Therefore, things which never repeat and can't be shown through empirical evidence can't be subjects for science. 

Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

Cheers.

Not at work. 

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. Frogs have a frog nature. They are and do what frogs do. It is not in a frog's nature to sing "Là ci darem la mano." If a frog started to do this, it would be outside of -- "over" -- the frog's nature. That's what supernatural means. 

So what is the supernatural? It is every event which happens which is not in the nature of the thing which does it. 

The universe is very large and has been around for a long time. Human beings evolved for survival, not full-spectrum truth. Since our senses and the things we pay attention to are extremely limited, there could be stuff going on all the time that we don't know about. There could be hapax legomenon-type events which science can't address. 

It used to be that when something happened that natural philosophers couldn't explain, they would call it "occult," which just means hidden. That leaves open the possibility of later explanation. But that doesn't mean that everything can be explained someday. We don't know.

I am not saying that supernatural events occur. I am saying that if we rule them out because science can't study them then we are affirming the consequent.

If science didn't study events that occurred once and were not repeated then no science could be applied to the Wow Signal.

[Belacqua]

 so it is a definitions game.

The term "supernatural" is notoriously hard to define. So if we're going to talk about it, it makes sense to have some notion of what we're discussing, and I offered a traditional definition. But if you'd prefer a different one, I'm willing to work with it.

 I would counter with my definition of natural which would be whatever is observed (Not necessarily with eyes or ears) is natural.

Does this mean that everything that hasn't been observed isn't natural? That seems problematic to me. It would mean that for a very long time the H. pylori in people's stomachs wasn't natural, and then it became natural when we observed it. There are a lot of rocks on Mars that haven't been observed yet, but I don't believe that they are supernatural. 

If you want to say that anything which has been or could be observed is natural, I think that's just a fancy way to say that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural, by definition. So you've defined it out of existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

So if a frog threw its asshole against the wall and jumped through it to another dimension and I saw it happen I would say we have a lot to learn about the true nature of frogs!

As I've said more than once now, if we could explain something like that through science and the nature of frogs, the explanation wouldn't be supernatural. 

If a thing is, then it is natural. If God exists it is natural, I would argue that it would constitute the anchor point of all of nature from most definitions of god that I know.

OK, this is clear. You're saying that by definition that there's no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christians who hold to the definition of supernatural I gave earlier agree with you that God is natural.

---

And how would you know if they are unable to do this? It isn't uncommon for there to be unanswered questions for decades. For example, is dark matter supernatural? It almost seems to be by your definition.

No, not at all. Dark matter is so far unexplained. I have been clear that there can be unexplained things which are natural. If in the future people worked out exactly what dark matter is and does, and we see that it operates according to its nature, then it's natural.

Science does NOT rely 'methodological naturalism' as you (and others) say. 

This is a strong claim. Here are some quotes that give my understanding of why science relies on methodological naturalism. Please tell me why they are wrong.

from https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/...ralism.htm

Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

“methodological naturalism” is the view that religious commitments have no relevance within science

from https://infidels.org/library/modern/barb...alism.html quoting Paul Kurtz:

First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations.

and from the same site, quoting Arthur Strahler:

The naturalistic view is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption."[8]

It seems to me that you and others on this thread are advocating methodological naturalism by insisting that if a frog sang Mozart we would look for and discover a natural explanation.

Back to your post:

And how you you know whether a 'natural' explanation is possible?

I deliberately chose an example which looks impossible. The music I pointed to is a duet between a soprano and a bass, in which both are singing different melodies and articulating different words. There are singers who can produce two notes at once, but no one has yet sung two parts from a Mozart duet simultaneously. I think that given what we know of the human speech apparatus, it is impossible. And a fortiori for frogs. 

You are insistent that if this impossible thing were observed it would be natural. I think there are some things we can rule out as occurring given the facts of nature as we know them. But, as I have said several times now, if science finds a natural explanation then the thing is not supernatural. I am not as committed as you are to the proposition that no such supernatural thing (according to the definition I'm using) has never and will never and could never happen. It seems unlikely to me, but the impossibility of the supernatural is not something science can demonstrate. Therefore our dismissal of the supernatural is a belief about metaphysics, not a scientific conclusion.