Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Use the PM system or something.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE!Adminnemooseus

Hey stragg - hope things are well w/ you and yours ..And just a heads up in case I poop out on ya - I don't have much passion for this topic, as I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria ..However, I had a bit o' time, and so, I thought we might mix it up .. I asked you how one should attempt to classify any distinctions between unknown phenomena - within a natural context, and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural' phenomena? Please, answer the question.To answer yours one way - I'd suggest that colliding branes would be a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe, providing the theory was overturned by a more recent theory which garnered a broader acceptance within scientific culture. The interpretation of evidence - the knowledge and beliefs of the distinct cultures, as well as, the methods by which they reach their respective conclusions. In what way exactly? While the fundamental's of the concept may have changed, the actual phenomena remains the same. Exactly .. almost - wouldn't what was once thought of as 'supernatural' have then transcended into a naturalistic concept?This would now allow the phenomena to be examined through a lens of scientific criteria by the respective scientific culture.In the same way, a scientific theory that is overturned within scientific culture is relegated to the dust bins of science fiction¹. That's what many are doing - albeit, not all are using the scientific method. I don't know if I agree here.Providing a well regarded body of scientists reached a conclusion that a specific entity was somehow responsible for distinct weather related phenomena, that entity would then cease to be 'supernatural' - plain and simple. The scientific method would still have been the vehicle driven to reach the destination. Pure poppycock.What had been previously regarded by both cultures as 'science-fiction' or 'supernatural', would then be regarded as natural within the scientific culture. Why² would science, after reaching a conclusion that satisfied the demands of scientific criteria, then suddenly adopt the methods of a religious culture? Again, I don't know if I can concede here. If it is not classifying the concept of fire as natural, what is it??The suggestion appears to be, that if one is aware of the scientific explanations for a natural phenomena, they must cease in any believe that a particular phenomena - or experience derived from becoming enjoined with that phenomena, are a superior form of a naturalistic concept, or, perhaps 'supernatural'.That seems to be a bold declaration of faith. As evidence against this position, I present Article 1 - a full on, complete double rainbow all the way across the sky. Suppose this onlooker is reflecting on the covenant rainbow mytholgy associated within the OT or having issues with his sexuality; perhaps simply caught off guard by the majesty of the natural world or maybe just zoot'd out of his mind, eatin 'shrooms and smokin kush - whatever the case may be ..Nonetheless, can anybody other than him interpret, or truly judge, what happened to him that day?The response he displays to this phenomena is likely one of the most profound human moments I've ever seen captured on film or video. So intense. Yet, I find it hard to believe he isn't aware that white sunlight is entering lil' droplets of rain, being broken into a myriad of colors while continuing in slightly different directions as it magnifies and reflects off the back of the raindrop, passing back into the air again, while in the process of being further refracted.Or, at the least, he knows somebody else is aware of this. My question to you, sir, is this: Would someone be correct, or incorrect, in stating that the full on double rainbow all the way across the sky that this fell'r witnessed first hand, and the experience which was enjoined to it, were in no way 'supernatural'? You just stated 'I don't think that is the same as making their concept of fire natural' - which is it? Exactly - the concept is variable. The point is, the phenomena remains constant.One Love ¹ ~ aka, the 'supernatural'
² ~ Answer - they wouldn't.Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

How life emerged on Earth is currently an unknown.Abiogenesis as being researched by scientists in terms of chemical reactions and natural environments would be a non-supernatural explanation to that unknown. God provided the spark of life - Would be a supernatural explanation to that unknown.Where supernatural explanations are posited it is implicit that the explanation in question (i.e. God in the example above) is itself inherently immune from material understanding or investigation. Instead some sort of non-scientific/empirical method of knowing is presumed or asserted. Or the supernaturalist in question takes what is essentially a rationalist approach. The following is fairly typical example:Dr Sing writes:

quote:

---

All I’m saying is: God Himself is not subject to science, but God’s effects certainly are subject to and can be studied by science.

​

We can study the physical world around us, and make extrapolations about the supernatural world based on those studies but we can never physically study the supernatural world itself.

​

Message 55

---

I think that is ultimately the difference conceptually. The empirical "knowability" (i.e. ability to investigate) of the explanation itself. So you think physicists are putting forward theories of the supernatural? I think they might be quite surprised to hear that.What's more Supernaturalists continually claim that scientists are biased against the supernatural and that they are unjustifiably refusing to consider supernatural answers on a purely ideological basis. Here is a fairly typical example of that stance: Message 69So supernaturalists themselves certainly seem to think that there is a fundamental difference between the supernatural explanations they are putting forward and naturalistic explanations scientists are seeking for current unknowns.But you apparently think that scientists themselves are actually proposing supernatural explanations.Go figure.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just to answer our questions: What is supernatural about either rainbows or experiencing awe at nature? Nothing.Thus he would be incorrect. It isn't making their supernatural concept of fire natural. It is replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural. The phenomenon as observed (e.g. fire) remains constant but the nature of the explanation for that phenomenon doesn't.Hopefully that clears things up for you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Personally I make distinctions as follows:theory - sound model with numerous lines of supporthypothesis - proposed model with no or little support but logically coherent and physically possible using either current laws of physics or suggesting a modified law that is logically and self-consistent and not contradictory to other established laws (unless also supplying the replacement with same conditions as above)...this last bit can be iterated as many times as needed....Pseudo-science - model pretending to be theory or hypothesis, but with logical or self inconsistency, and/or contradiction of established laws with no alternative self and logically consistent replacement, or a model entirely tautologous which pretends to be predictive or explanatory. (this latter could be part of a separate category - bad science - but I'll leave that out for simplicity)Paranormal/supernatural - report or event which is not explicable by current laws, suggests no alternative self and logically consistent laws......etcI've probably not expressed it as well as I could with more time, but that gives the gist, I think...

Hi stragg .. Oh, c'mon stragg, you can do better - you know that's not what was written. That doesn't answer the question - how does one classify distinctions between unknown natural phenomena and the non-evidently 'supernatural' ?However, the response given assumes when the 'spark o' life' is provided by a god, it is done so outside of the context of a naturalistic framework.So another question - how do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?Just curious .. I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.Which is to say, not very relevant.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi stragg .. Do you kiss your mum with that mouth? So, one last time for clarity ..'Replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural', isn't making the concept of fire natural to them?Is that your final answer ? There is no confusion here to clear up. As was stated, the phenomena remains constant while the concepts are variables.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

quote:

---

I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.

---

Doesn't often happen. You get bits of a theory changing as new data comes in, but the theory itself, being based on evidence, is unlikely to be wrong - it is usually just incomplete or too small a picture. Hence Newton wasn't really wrong, he just had too small a view, so mechanics still works for most purposes but doesn't at the extremes - which is where Einstein comes in. Newton is still extremely relevant though - anyone doing calculations involving ballistics, navigation and most other 'mechanics' applications will use Newtons laws since they will give an answer that is 'good enough' unless your problem involves something moving very fast indeed, or something very small indeed.

If "supernatural" is just a placeholder for the unknown as you claim how can we have recognisably naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations for these unknowns? E.g abiogenesis by means of chemical reactions Vs the creation of life by God. Actually what you said is the following:Bailey previously writes: "I'd suggest that colliding branes would be a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe, providing the theory was overturned by a more recent theory which garnered a broader acceptance within scientific culture."So are Lamarckian evolution or Hoyles steady state hypothesis supernatural explanations because they have been overturned by better evidenced theories?Obviously not. So what are you talking about? You are conflating the observed phenomenon with the explanations put forward for the phenomenon. Axiom of mine? You must have me confused with a theist/supernaturalist.But if you really want to know how they arrive at the conclusion that God created the universe this debate site is full of their nonsensical reasoning. Have a read. But none of it amounts to anything more than a somethingsupernatural of the gaps explanation.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was too busy snogging yours.So which part of rainbows or awe do you think requires a supernatural explanation? You are conflating the observed phenomenon (e.g. fire) with the explanation of what that phenomenon is.Let's try and clear this up for you. If it is believed that the divine being Thor is responsible for thunder and lightening and we can instead demonstrate and convince someone that it is actually very explicable static electricity that is responsible instead - We have not made Thor natural. We have instead completely replaced their supernatural explanation (i.e. the divine being that is Thor) for thunder and lightening with a naturalistic explanation.Likewise with fire. If we can demonstrate and convince those who believe that fire is the physical manifestation of some sort of spooky mystical spirit that it is instead a perfectly explicable chemical reaction which can be initiated and controlled - Then we have not made their concept of fire spirits natural. As you seem to be asserting. We have instead replaced their supernatural explanation of what fire actually is with a naturalistic alternative concept.Which part of this remains unclear to you? And as I said to you previously - The phenomenon as observed (e.g. fire) remains constant but the nature of the explanation for that phenomenon doesn't.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

When a scientific theory is overturned it is completely discarded by science ie: Phlogiston. or it enters the realm of pseudoscience ie: alchemy. It may be used as science fiction by science fiction writers who are either no science oriented or are science oriented but using it as satire or sarcasm ie the following:

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi stragg - hope things are well with you & yours .. Ouch - that beotch better have my money!Just kiddin' - I really can't speak in regards to your mum, seeing as I don't even know the man and honestly, I've nothing poor to say about him anyway ..The offspring says it all. A wise man once cautioned me that we must be careful not to let theologians incorrectly frame questions, and there's a sense that this is what's happening.In Message 137 it was stated that, 'I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria'. You see, our main issue is that the concept of 'supernatural' has remained the variable in our discussion. I am more inclined to agree with oni that '"supernatural" means nothing at all' and you staunchly disagree with that position.And so, you will be hard pressed to convince me that there is a 'supernatural' explanation for the beauty of the natural world or our varying response to it. A better way to word the question towards me may be, 'Which part of rainbows or awe do you think are unable to be defined using scientific methods?'. To that I may curtly respond, the part where it is testably demonstrated that awe is not experienced in a uniform fashion amongst all the inhabitants of the earth.Taking that into account, how come I don't blat when I see rainbows?? Perhaps the emotional response displayed on behalf of that fella may be considered something extraordinarily natural. I've admired rainbows and, indeed, witnessed them in the company of others without the effect displayed within that video clip being manifest. Yet, can I safely assume and preach that their was not a 'spark o' the divine' encapsulated within his response in the video?To some people - mostly the red headed step children of scientists I would presume, science has completed all of its tests, and so, is in current possession of all the answers. However, much like Ricky, I think science still has alotta 'splainin' to do and am glad that actual scientists are going about that task.So, in what ways can we explain a sense of extraordinary awe within the context of a natural framework?Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question? It doesn't appear to be a matter of clarity, but rather semantics. Of course the 'supernatual' explanation of fire isn't modified, being instead replaced. However, the point is that the phenomena has not changed - only the methods and concepts utilized to reach the respective veritable conclusions.That's why 'supernatural' was suggested as an outdated term used by some in the ol' skool to identify the occurence of various rare phenomena which yet evade a veritable scientific framework. What we have are two distinct cultures describing the same phenomena - in this case fire, in different ways that correlate to each culture's methodologies. For you, apparently, the 'supernatural' does exsist, but for no other reason than to be paradoxically disproven.For me that is not an issue, as I do not subscribe to the concept.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hello bikerman - hope things are well in your neck of the woods .. However, it does happen. All very good points - thanks for the input.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi bluescat .. I agree.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi stragg .. I think what you are asking is how two different cultures can arrive at distinctly different conclusions regarding the same phenomena.If that's close, I would suggest they each arrive at their respective conclusions by employing different methods. Message 137Also, can you share an example of a 'recognizably naturalistic .. unknown' with the rest of the audience?If not I'd say you're being pedantic. I'm suggesting evidently falsified scientific theories, science fiction and the 'supernatural' all maintain zero relevancy within the context of honest science.Nothing more. No.I'm asking how anyone can distinguish between non-evidently 'supernatural' and unknown natural phenomena.I contend they are both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are simply nonsense. Message 269In Message 138 you stated that the claim of a god providing the spark which may be necessary to infuse life would be a supernatural explanation to how life emerged on Earth. That statement assumes if a 'spark o' life' is provided by a god, it is done so outside of the context of a naturalistic framework.I am asking how you conclude that. One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary