Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

The supernatural hypothesis has failed.Of the innumerable supernatural explanations proposed throughout human history not a single one has ever been vindicated. All those questions that have been able to be adequately explored have resulted in the overturning of the mystical, magical and supernatural explanation by means of examining and understanding the entirely natural. The entire history of science is one of encountering perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seem to demand magical and supernatural answers but which ultimately turn out to be entirely natural. There have been no exceptions to this. The best the committed supernaturalist can now to do is cling to the ever diminishing remaining gaps in our knowledge and understanding. So given this epic failure of the supernatural hypothesis to date is it time to abandon this hypothesis?Is it ever now evidentially and rationally justifiable to cite the supernatural explanation as the answer or cause of ANY known phenomenon?Phenomenon to which the supernatural answer is still commonly advocated such as (but not limited to):

The creation of the universe.

Abiogenesis

Human belief in the existence of the supernatural

Religious experiences

Man's sense of morality

​

Whilst science can no more disprove the supernatural answer than it can prove the natural, have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed as futile and desperately unlikely to bear any fruit as a means of explaining anything?

​

Has the supernatural hypothesis failed?

​

Or does continued advocacy of the supernatural as an explanation remain justified? If so on what basis?

​

Edited by Straggler, : Add title

Well historically it could be that something supernatural is responsible for fertility, or the weather, or the harvest or any other ill understood phenomenon of the time.These days it tends to be the notion that the supernatural is responsible for some more grand unknown, or belief based, phenomenon. For example that somethingsupernatural is required to explain things such as (but not restricted to):

The creation of the universe.

Abiogenesis

Widespread human belief in the existence of the supernatural

Religious experiences

Man's sense of morality

​

Is the supernatural explanation (e.g. that god created the universe, OR that religious experiences are best explained by the actual existence, and interaction with, supernatural entities rather than psychological factors etc. etc.) a viable explanation for any of the above?

​

Is somethingsupernaturaldidit a viable answer or explanation to anything?

​

If so what?

Well I agree. But there are many here at EvC who claim that their belief in the supernatural is somehow evidenced.They must consider some aspect of nature to be best explained by the actual existence of the supernatural. Whether the phenomenon in question is the existence of the universe itself, the fact that humans across cultures display religious beliefs or some sort of internal experience - They are implicitly citing the supernatural explanation for said phenomenon as a valid one.But given the 100% failure rate of the supernatural explanation to anything at all why does anyone persist with this as an explanation to anything at all?Personal appeal alone?

I guess it depends what it is that reveals itself to us. Does simply creating the universe make something supernatural? Are colliding branes (for example) supernatural? I don’t think so.If we humans ever reach the dizzy technological heights of being able to create universes ourselves would that make us supernatural? Again — I think not.So what is an example of a supernatural explanation for the origins of our universe? Well the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent eternal, uncreated incomprehensible immaterial being that is oft cited as God would be one obvious example.The difference between the two is comparable to the difference between technology and magic. Technology utilises the laws of nature to achieve a result. Magic overturns the laws of nature to achieve a result. Only the latter is supernatural. It certainly gets applied as an explanation to things that we do not understand at this time. But I don’t think that when supernaturalists cite such explanations they are suggesting that we simply currently lack the know-how or technology to investigate those explanations. It isn’t just a question of having your God-ometer set to the correct supernatural frequency (for example). They seem to be suggesting that such explanations are imperceptible, unknowable and inscrutable to us mere material beings for some reason.I certainly agree that the trend of finding natural explanations for as yet unexplained phenomenon will continue. And I also agree that our concept of what constitutes natural will continue to expand as our knowledge progresses. There may even be natural phenomenon that will remain forever beyond our ability to understand.However I don’t think we are going to discover and simply relabel the sort of inherently imperceptible immaterial entities which supernaturalists advocate. Divine or ethereal entities which are not subject to laws of nature and/or which are capable of suspending or overcoming those laws in order to achieve the miraculous.If we discover evidence of something like that — Then the supernaturlaists will really have something to shout about.

That which is inherently immune from material investigation of any sort?

Yes. Then it wouldn't actually be magic. It would just appear to be so by those too scientifically and technologically limited to know otherwise. Those applying the laws of nature would know that they were not magicians. Because if they are natural they are not supernatural. So you think the natural world cannot have come about by supernatural means......Try telling that to a supernaturalist.

I guess it is a good job most of us aren't expected to plant any crops this year!! I think you are right to suggest that we are all irrationally superstitious to some extent. Even when we rationally know it is nonsense. Well it seems obvious to me. But apparently it isn't nearly so obvious to a huge number of people. What is it that either we are seeing that they are not or they are seeing that we are not? And that feeling of confidence seems to ultimately be responsible for a great deal of dispute. The EvC debate board would I suspect be a very quiet place without it.

OK. As does my supernaturalistic "opponent" (to describe one with an opposing view) OK. But is it "correct"? How do they (or indeed we) determine this? Epystemology 101. Def your bag!!! Why is "their" view unreasonable and "our" view viable? What makes it such? AAAAArrrGGGhhh!!!But that aside.Surely some world views are more "reasonable" and "viable" than others? What determines this? When does (the much overstated) cognitive dissonance come into play on such matters? So are all POV equally valid? Yep. And if there was a "reality" poker game the supernaturalist would be clasping his hands over his naked genitals whilst debating which sock to remove as the last garment before one.

Imperceptible unknowablity?Seriously - A theist or some other form of supernaturalist would be better placed to answer these questions.I basically agree with you.But if "gods" (or whatever) is just that which we don't understand in the same sense that Thor is simply static electricity building up in clouds then I have no quarrel with the supernatural per se.But I doubt that those who advocate supernatural explanations would accept that definition.

As much as it pains me here is a dictionary definition: For the purposes of this thread I would suggest - The divine, the miraculous and/or that pertaining "to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws". And by "cannot" I mean inherenetly cannot. Not just that it is practically difficult to do so.Alternate universes can potentially be investigated in terms of, and explained according to, natural laws. So can magnetism. Can God? Can the soul? Can the afterlife? What experiments can we conceivably do to study these phenomenon?These things may well have material explanations. But I don't think many supernaturalists would be very happy having the object of their belief being reduced down to an equation or demonstrated as to exist only as a result of the material brains of humans.In general it seems supernaturalists want to be able to claim the innate and inherent incomprehensibility of the object of their beliefs when it suits them but suddenly get all coy about this innate unknowabliity when seeking to conflate supernatural notions of God with materially derived concepts such as alternate universes in conversations like this one.

Hey Buz Feel free to supply a fuller and more involved rendition of the supernatural hypothesis if you want. All I ask is that in doing so you recognise the fact that the supernatural hypothesis (in one form or another) seems to have been around for as long as man has existed.In other words the supernatural hypothesis does not begin and end with your specific Christian notion of the supernatural. Agreed? I was talking to a Muslim recently who claims that the Koran "predicted" the Big Bang. Post hoc interpretation of metaphorically ambiguous texts made with the benefits of scientific or historical hindsight are no more "predictions" than are the musing of Nostradamus. But I am sure you have a topic on that subject already going. So point me to it and I will pursue the issue of prediction with you there if you so wish.As for ID. What is it exactly that you think a supernatural intelligent designer is required to explain?And why a supernatural designer rather than a natural one? Given the topic title I hope that admins will see fit to allow "supernatural evidence" to be presented without deeming it off-topic or disallowed simply for it's supernatural nature.Personally I am bemused as to what "supernatural evidence" actually is? Can you elaborate with some examples? If you think every problem in science is a gap in which to insert the supernatural then you are following a dismal tradition of failure spanning the entirety of human history.Do you consider the god of the gaps to be a valid argument? Your argument here seems to be that because our intelligence has so far proved incapable of producing life from non-life that intelligence must therefore be required to produce life from non-life?How does that add-up? Why? Because we cannot wholly discern and/or replicate the extreme conditions of the Earth and/or universe billions of years ago?Don't you think that if there are non-supernatural answers to these questions that they might be quite difficult to investigate?Or does that not enter your thinking?

By being posited as an explanation for known phenomenon. My instinct is to point out that they are all as un-evidenced as each other and all seem to claim immunity from being investigated in terms of any reliable notion of evidence as each other. Thus (instinctively) my answer to your question is - Yes.But I am prepared to abandon or compromise that (admittedly) instinctive position if you can give me reason to? Can you give examples of the sort of thing you are distinguishing between? And the evidential difference you think there is between the two types you have mentioned (i.e. "phenomenon" and "beings"?) Stochastic (I had to look up this word) meaning conjectural or probabalistic?Again can you give an example of something that you would consider to be "stochastic" but which we can all agree is not supernatural?

I know. I know. It's terrible. After the tragic failures of successfully predicting all manner of since observed physical phenomenon you would think we would have learnt not to give any credence at all to those pesky mathematical models.The fact that most of modern physics has followed this method of discovery should in no way be taken into account. Of course.

Now you are just ranting Buz.When the worldwide conspiracy to suppress the creationist truth emerges, as it surely will, you get to tell us all "I told you so".Until that happy day.........

How about you jar. Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? You have previously cited the existence of myths and stories to be indicative of the actual existence of the supernatural. Why is the actual existence of something supernatural the best explanation (or even an explanation that should be given any credence at all) for the recorded fact of human belief in such things? What doe the evidence suggest regarding the source of supernatural myths and stories?