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

[possibletarian]

We can infer that if science finds an explanation, it will be a natural one. If we assume from this that nothing supernatural happens, we are begging the question. If we assume from this that there is nothing in the world science can't address, we are begging the question. Science finds natural explanation because that's what it can look for.

Exactly what question is being begged ?

We would need evidence that something beyond the natural existed before even proposing or suggesting anything outside of nature.  We can't 'consider' a none~natural explanation till there is something to consider.

The problem we have is not so much why science seems unable to to answer questions about the supernatural, but that a none~natural explanation is considered at all.

Can you give a good reason to consider a none~natural explanation ?

[Belacqua]

Exactly what question is being begged ? 

If someone says that we will find only natural causes because only natural causes exist, that's begging the question. 

Begging the question is when you announce what answer you will get while you are asking. 

We would need evidence

"Evidence," as far as I can see, means "scientific evidence" for the people posting here. Empirical, repeatable. 

Saying that everything that exists must be demonstrated in this way because the only things that exist can be demonstrated in this way is begging the question. 

If, instead, we take a broader definition of "evidence," then there might be reason to consider supernatural explanations. For example, if someone experienced a one-off, non-repeatable, non-empirically demonstrable event, some people would consider that evidence. But I imagine that you wouldn't.

[possibletarian]

Exactly what question is being begged ? 

If someone says that we will find only natural causes because only natural causes exist, that's begging the question. 

Begging the question is when you announce what answer you will get while you are asking. 

We would need evidence

"Evidence," as far as I can see, means "scientific evidence" for the people posting here. Empirical, repeatable. 

Saying that everything that exists must be demonstrated in this way because the only things that exist can be demonstrated in this way is begging the question. 

If, instead, we take a broader definition of "evidence," then there might be reason to consider supernatural explanations. For example, if someone experienced a one-off, non-repeatable, non-empirically demonstrable event, some people would consider that evidence. But I imagine that you wouldn't.

I'm still unsure as to the question it's begging ?

Okay,  can you give us any kind of evidence you like. why you think we should take it seriously as evidence and why you came to the conclusion that it should be considered evidence ?

Lets forget scientific evidence for a moment...

Can you finish this sentence.. ''I believe this should be seriously considered evidence.. because...

[Belacqua]

I'm still unsure as to the question it's begging ?

OK, I give up.

Okay,  can you give us any kind of evidence you like. why you think we should take it seriously as evidence and why you came to the conclusion that it should be considered evidence ?

Lets forget scientific evidence for a moment...

Can you finish this sentence.. ''I believe this should be seriously considered evidence.. because...

"Evidence" is any input which increases the credibility of a statement. 

Raw sensory input becomes evidence when we interpret it as increasing the credibility of some statement. 

How we interpret that input depends on our metaphysical views -- what particular statement it is that we think needs increased credibility. 

For someone who entertains the possibility of one-off, non-repeatable, non-testable events in the world, an inexplicable event will constitute evidence of something that science can't explain.

For someone who assumes a priori that everything is natural and everything real can be addressed by science, such an event would not be evidence for anything until it is given a scientific explanation.

[possibletarian]

I'm still unsure as to the question it's begging ?

OK, I give up.

Okay,  can you give us any kind of evidence you like. why you think we should take it seriously as evidence and why you came to the conclusion that it should be considered evidence ?

Lets forget scientific evidence for a moment...

Can you finish this sentence.. ''I believe this should be seriously considered evidence.. because...

"Evidence" is any input which increases the credibility of a statement. 

Raw sensory input becomes evidence when we interpret it as increasing the credibility of some statement. 

How we interpret that input depends on our metaphysical views -- what particular statement it is that we think needs increased credibility. 

For someone who entertains the possibility of one-off, non-repeatable, non-testable events in the world, an inexplicable event will constitute evidence of something that science can't explain.

For someone who assumes a priori that everything is natural and everything real can be addressed by science, such an event would not be evidence for anything until it is given a scientific explanation.

Forget any scientific explanation for now ...

Why would you jump to considering a non~natural explanation for an experience, what reasoning did you use to make that jump ?

[LadyForCamus]

up until this point, every cause for a physical phenomenon we’ve ever explained has been a natural one

I think I addressed this before.

The scientific method is set up to find natural causes. It's no surprise that every cause it has found has been natural. It finds what it's set up to find.

Science is set up to find causes. In order to hold a rationally justified belief in this proposed, “extra” category of causes, we would need a valid and sound reason to do so. Is there one?

I don't know if we have reasons or not at this point.

So, at the present, we know of no good reason to believe that the supernatural exists, and/or that it should be considered as a candidate cause for any unexplained phenomenon? 

---

It’s not the unbeliever’s responsibility to consider it, without good reason, as a possible cause in every instance, or assume it is the cause when he can’t find a natural answer.

I'm not asking anyone to consider it without good reason.

So, then if I say “I can’t rationally consider it because I have no good reason at this time to do so,” we’d be in agreement then? 

I'm saying that assuming its non-existence, a priori, is begging the question.

No it’s not, because it’s not a reasonless a priori assumption, lol. It’s a lack of consideration resultant from having no good reason to consider it in the first place. 

If you don't want to think about the questions science can't address, that's fine. That's your taste.

I think about those things constantly, but in the absence of any logical, rational way to investigate them, if such things exist at all, there’s nothing else to do but think. I can’t see a way in which those ponderings, fascinating as they are, can be practically useful.

[Belacqua]

Why would you jump to considering a non~natural explanation for an experience, what reasoning did you use to make that jump ?

If there were a case in which no scientific explanation were possible then ruling out a supernatural explanation a priori would be begging the question. 

People's insistence that if the frog sang an Italian duet it would absolutely have to have a natural explanation is begging the question. Promissory naturalism.

A more skeptical person, when seeing something that science has shown to be impossible, might consider a supernatural explanation. Someone committed to a scientific metaphysics would rule out a supernatural explanation. 

People whose way of interpreting the world includes factors that science can't study would understandably see events inexplicable by science as evidence that there are things science can't explain. People whose way of interpreting the world is that it's all natural would say that events inexplicable by science will be explicable someday.

That's all for today. I'm just repeating myself.

[possibletarian]

Why would you jump to considering a non~natural explanation for an experience, what reasoning did you use to make that jump ?

If there were a case in which no scientific explanation were possible then ruling out a supernatural explanation a priori would be begging the question. 

People's insistence that if the frog sang an Italian duet it would absolutely have to have a natural explanation is begging the question. Promissory naturalism.

A more skeptical person, when seeing something that science has shown to be impossible, might consider a supernatural explanation. Someone committed to a scientific metaphysics would rule out a supernatural explanation. 

That's all for today. I'm just repeating myself.

Well yes you are repeating yourself, and have been doing for many months, but you still need to answer the question.

1) Let's say there is no explanation known for an event, why would we make the leap to a non~natural explanation, what makes you consider this as an alternative  ?

2) Let's say someone has an experience they can't explain,  how would this increase the credibility of a non~natural explanation ?

3) Let's say a frog did exactly as you have suggested, (something that would have to happen in the confines of the natural world to be observed) at what point do you make the leap to a non~natural explanation, and why ?

If you simply say you believe that the non~natural could exist as a personal belief, then fine. But to ask others to consider it as a viable alternative requires more.

[LadyForCamus]

Why would you jump to considering a non~natural explanation for an experience, what reasoning did you use to make that jump ?

If there were a case in which no scientific explanation were possible

Wait, who says that? How could one even demonstrate that no scientific explanation is possible? Your running into some errors in reasoning here.

People's insistence that if the frog sang an Italian duet it would absolutely have to have a natural explanation is begging the question.

This reductio ad absurdism to make naturalism as explanation seem absurd doesn’t work, because you have no way of ruling out a natural explanation for a hypothetical phenomenon.

[brewer]

A more skeptical person, when seeing something that science has shown to be impossible, might consider a supernatural explanation.

A skeptical person would not consider "supernatural" an option to begin with. As soon as the supernatural option was proposed the skeptic would ask for the evidence.

You're just talking out your ass for the sake of arguing.