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

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I think of 'Kami's' every now and then.

They're a splendid idea to think about. 

Now... if you'd be kind enough to supply a 'Better' example of 'Supernatural' than just stapling 'Frog and 'singing' together, that'd be great.

I'm sure you can come up with examples that are just as good. Just think of something which is well known, the limits of which are fairly obvious. 

The point of course is that things as they exist are a certain way and not another. Your body is made of flesh and blood, not solid lead; it's human-sized, not a million miles long; it does human things, and not quasar things. 

Thought... I thought perhapse you were trying for some humor referencing the old "Merry Melodies"/"Looney Tunes" cartoon for a while there. 

Now that you mention it, I remember that cartoon! The frog sings and dances with a top hat, right? Maybe that was in my subconscious somehow when I thought of my example. Man, Saturday morning cartoons were fantastically important for me about 55 years ago. That and Batman twice a week.

As I recall, in the cartoon the frog refused to demonstrate his singing ability for anyone but his owner, right? Some people here would conclude from this that the singing ability never existed.

Well...... the 'Sting in the tale' as it were was that the 'Owner' inherits the troublesome amphibian with a possible inkling as to the truoble it might cause. When they finally 'Dispose' of said frustration there is a later scene of some new 'Rube' discovering said frog to which the veiwer surmises the shenanigans will begin anew.

Looking back.... I feel that the creators of said comedy might have been trying to poke fun at Mr Schrodinger's cat comment which would have been floating around somd circles as 'Brand new' at the time.

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

Since, this is before such things as computer graphics, Government, Big Buisness and the various Military branches had to seek out such skilled artisans when they wanted to bring that extra 'Zing' to a big budget sales pitch.

Not to mention such things as training films etc.

I remember a tale where a group if artist were sequestered by the FBI (Or the CIA?) due to their cartoon of a target ending device seeming far too similar to the highly secret developments going on at the Manhattan project.

Yes.... people's sense of acceptable humor has changed.

No more Three Stooges or exploding Dafty Duck for ths kiddies now days.

[brewer]

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

Please demonstrate that your assertion is true.

I will not argue this with you, it's a pointless exercise and I must admit that you are better at arguing than I am. However, winning arguments does not create existence.

Lack of concrete evidence should suffice, unless you've got some that you think I should consider. 

Google "concrete evidence of the supernatural" and see what you get.

[The Grand Nudger]

A thing doesn't have to be coherent or true in order to produce positive outcomes. If a supernaturalist could be satisfied with what the supernatural is, and what it's not, they could effect more positive outcomes. That's the lesson that aesop was teaching us behind all of the other lessons couched in supernatural narratives.

My wife's a supernaturalist who realizes that, lol. She gets it...and she's a much better recruiter for supernaturalism on account of that.

[polymath257]

if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

This is the metaphysical question begging that everyone here is doing. You are sure, a priori, that it must be so.

In what way could your assertion here be falsified?

No, that is the *definition* of the term 'nature'. You don't verify or falsify definitions. They are either useful or not. So read the rest of my post and comment on
what I was saying instead of picking one statement.

So, if you don't like this definition, propose an alternative and explain why you think your definition captures the concept better than mine.

---

I think of 'Kami's' every now and then.

They're a splendid idea to think about. 

Now... if you'd be kind enough to supply a'Better' example of 'Supernatural' than just stapling 'Frog and 'singing' together, that'd be great.

I'm sure you can come up with examples that are just as good. Just think of something which is well known, the limits of which are fairly obvious. 

The point of course is that things as they exist are a certain way and not another. Your body is made of flesh and blood, not solid lead; it's human-sized, not a million miles long; it does human things, and not quasar things. 

Yes, and all of those properties are discovered by observation. Ultimately, the nature of a thing is all of the properties it has: all the interactions it has, and all the behavior it has. And ALL of those are determined via observation.

Thought... I thought perhapse you were trying for some humor referencing the old "Merry Melodies"/"Looney Tunes" cartoon for a while there. 

Now that you mention it, I remember that cartoon! The frog sings and dances with a top hat, right? Maybe that was in my subconscious somehow when I thought of my example. Man, Saturday morning cartoons were fantastically important for me about 55 years ago. That and Batman twice a week.

As I recall, in the cartoon the frog refused to demonstrate his singing ability for anyone but his owner, right? Some people here would conclude from this that the singing ability never existed.

Yes, if that was consistently the case, the conclusion is, clearly, that the owner is delusional. That is almost the definition of delusional, after all.

[LadyForCamus]

@Belacqua

When you say “a case where no scientific explanation is possible,” you’re doing the very thing you’ve accused others in this thread of doing; assuming one of two mutually exclusive causes is impossible in order to pave a way for the other.

I think there's another way we could approach it.

Let's say there are two positions.

1) All questions are answerable by science.

and 

2) Not all questions are answerable by science.

The first statement is falsifiable. To falsify it, you just have to find a question that science can't answer. (I'm not saying it has been or will be falsified, only that it could be.)

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

[Belacqua]

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.

[possibletarian]

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.

Then is it any more than an idea to you ?

If it isn't why are you suggesting it be considered ?

[Belacqua]

I think there's another way we could approach it.

Let's say there are two positions.

1) All questions are answerable by science.

and 

2) Not all questions are answerable by science.

The first statement is falsifiable. To falsify it, you just have to find a question that science can't answer. (I'm not saying it has been or will be falsified, only that it could be.)

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.")

[possibletarian]

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.")

What's with the persecution complex? People are simply asking you reasons why you would consider a non~natural explanation to anything you experience or observe.

If you say it's just what you believe, then fine you are welcome to that belief, but to suggest others are closed minded for not considering an invisible, unobservable, untestable, non~material world then it requires some further explanation.

All you seem to be doing is telling everyone they are closed minded, and when they ask you to educate about how you reasoned your way to consider the non~natural as a possibility we don't get any reasonable answers.

[brewer]

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.

I don't believe I'm making shit up. My assertion is that it's apparent from your posts, and not just in this thread. Posts that continually defend religion. Religion is based on supernatural existing as more than a concept. The only conclusion I can reach is that you need the supernatural to exist as more than a concept.