How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Jehanne]

This strikes me as very strange. Why do we think that a scientific test could have anything to do with the supernatural? Science works as well as it does by limiting itself to certain natural parameters...

This is just Ignorance on Parade; consider the following chemical reactions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-for..._reactions

These reactions are FORBIDDEN, that is, they have a ZERO probability of occurring. If they did occur, they would be observed, and all of modern physics & chemistry would crumble.

Lots and lots of these examples exist, from chemistry and particle physics. Ditto for the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee; such a "reaction" is FORBIDDEN.

[TheJefe817]

This is a tricky one, as I fully admit I do not know what evidence would convince me.  Certainly if something passes the strict testing conditions of something like the JRF million dollar test, maybe.

This strikes me as very strange. Why do we think that a scientific test could have anything to do with the supernatural? Science works as well as it does by limiting itself to certain natural parameters -- methodological naturalism. By definition, the supernatural would not be included in that.

  In terms of religion-based supernatural proof, I actually like something I heard on a podcast recently.  The host said he, like I, did not really know what evidence would convince him.  However, if god is an omni, he *does* know what would convince me, and has failed to provide that evidence.  Therefore, he either does not care about my lack of belief (as, by being omni, he should be able to provide it and knows I would not otherwise be convinced) or, more likely, does not exist at all.

This is a version of an argument we hear a lot. 

"I know what an omniscient and omnipotent entity would do, and nobody's doing that, so there must not be such an entity." This puts a lot of confidence in one's own abilities. Human beings are very far from being omni-anything. How are we to know what such an entity would care about, or how it would operate?

Sorry for my formatting - the quote thing is not working correctly for me ATM.  On the first portion, I'm not saying a naturalistic test could necessarily prove it, just that this is within my conception of what I could potentially accept.  There may be other evidence outside of the natural possible, but I have no concept of what that would be, and I'm not willing to start blanketly accepting every unproven scenario and then individfually disproving things instead.  For now, the natural is all I am convinced of, so I am simply unaware what those other factors would be, so I'm unconvinced.  I do not have a burden of disproof, so I'm awaiting proof - any proof - regardless of what form that takes.  When I see said proof, I can evaluate whether it convinces me.

On the second part, if I'm retreading an old argument, I apologize - it's new ground to me.  Again, same thing - I'm not necessarily instructing what a divine being would or should do, just saying it has not happened and speculating that this relates to either lack of desire to do so or lack of existence.  But, I may be wrong.  I just remain unconvinced in the presence of absolutely zero evidence.  Note I said likely does not exist, which is just my leaning based on the character of the god described in the bible.  I am not convinced beyond doubt he does not exist and would not presume to be able to prove it (same with goblins, etc).

[Angrboda]

We will simply have to agree to disagree on points #1 & #2, and with respect to #3, you're pounding on an open door.

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that you want to agree to disagree as your way of saying you're too febrile to simply admit you were wrong. Number three here isn't an open door so much as it isn't a door at all. The literature possessing characteristics similar to other literature that is not historical tells us nothing about how we "should" treat it, so you're wrong in that as well.

[LostLocke]

Dean!

Sam's okay, too.

I think you misspelled Crowley.

[Jehanne]

We will simply have to agree to disagree on points #1 & #2, and with respect to #3, you're pounding on an open door.

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that you want to agree to disagree as your way of saying you're too febrile to simply admit you were wrong. Number three here isn't an open door so much as it isn't a door at all. The literature possessing characteristics similar to other literature that is not historical tells us nothing about how we "should" treat it, so you're wrong in that as well.

Wrong about what? That atheistic naturalism is falsifiable?

As for the historical record, historians often speak of probabilities; for instance, that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical individual and was crucified by Pontius Pilate is very highly certain; that he rose corporeally from the dead, went to Britain to preach, and after that, went to North America to preach to the North American Indians is far, far less certain, so uncertain, that I dismiss it, even though such is found in the historical record

That a human being could, in advance, predict the exact head/tails outcome, in advance, of 100 coin tosses (or, 1000 or 10,000) and have that event ascribed to naturalistic causes is, in my opinion, abjectly absurd. I see no reason to discuss that further.

[Belacqua]

if I'm retreading an old argument, I apologize - it's new ground to me.

People do this all the time, and tend not to realize it. That's why I point it out when I see it.

We're more likely to notice when it's values we don't agree with. So for example if American Christians assume that Jesus supports the Second Amendment and hates welfare, that seems like obvious projection. They are attributing their own values to God.

But when we are talking about values and methods that we ourselves like, then it may go unnoticed. We just assume that of course God would share our way of thinking and goals, because ours are the very best ones. How could a good God be different?

Both sides imagine God to be bigger versions of themselves, which may be a function that religion has always played. But it carries no persuasiveness in making a metaphysical argument.

[Jehanne]

if I'm retreading an old argument, I apologize - it's new ground to me.

People do this all the time, and tend not to realize it. That's why I point it out when I see it.

You've pointed out nothing; in fact, I cannot recall anything that you've said that is significant.

[Pat Mustard]

To those that think that science limiting itself to natural (ie real) phenomena, may I remind them that at this stage 100% of what was previously thought supernatural has over the last few hundred years received a natural explanation.

[emjay]

To believe in ANYTHING supernatural one may as well believe in EVERYTHING supernatural; like witches, goblins demons, gods, talking trees, vampires and dragons to name a few. Why be selective? When no evidence exists for any of them, why dismiss any and not all?

This is ultimately one of my main remaining frustrations with the religion in my family; this tendency to believe in all of it, or at least within a certain category... so not so much vampires, ghosts, and goblins (well maybe ghosts) but certainly anything that claims to predict the future etc... such as astrology, tarot cards, reading tea leaves, psychics, voodoo etc... they believe and fear all of it, attributing it to 'sorcery' or the devil. It's just so frustrating because all of that from my perspective is just the power of self-fulfilling prophecy and self-fulfilling perception, and just because the practitioners of these things often believe so strongly in them - and thus appear and indeed are genuine in their beliefs at least (notwithstanding deliberate con artists), which in turn inspires confidence and trust in others - doesn't make the results any more real outside their own minds or the minds of others that believe in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

But when we are talking about values and methods that we ourselves like, then it may go unnoticed. We just assume that of course God would share our way of thinking and goals, because ours are the very best ones. How could a good God be different?

Both sides imagine God to be bigger versions of themselves, which may be a function that religion has always played. But it carries no persuasiveness in making a metaphysical argument.

Good point.  God, not sharing our way of thinking or our goals, could be employing the earth as a means of exterminating human life.  Perhaps it views us as an infestation.  It's completely on us that we, in such a predicament, believe ourselves to be the beneficiaries of a soul improving forge owned and operated by a sympathetic deity. We think it's trying to help us and make us better, because that's what we would do - it's just trying to get rid of some whiteflies.