Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

OK. In the previous thread you agreed that the actual existence of any un-evidenced entity was "highly improbable". You seem to have reneged on that. If it is entirely unevidenced then it can have originated only by virtue of someone's imagination. How can it be otherwise?Whilst the unevidenced imaginings of ones mind might possibly exist by some miracle of coincidence this would seem unlikely at best. No? Indeed. Well they are quite evidently related by the fact that the beliefs in question pertain to the existence of the particular thing in question. Unless they decide to question those stories and adopt a more evidence based approach to knowledge. Which of course many do. You tell me?

Nope. We were discussing "the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity" and you did, at the time, agree that this was "highly improbable".Are you reneging on this? (**Sigh**). Buz's concept of the supernatural might exist. It doesn't stop you (quite rightly in my view) berating him as talking un-evidenced nonsense though does it? All I ask is that your arguments are consistent.I ask again: If it is entirely unevidenced then it can have originated only by virtue of someone's imagination. How can it possibly be otherwise?Whilst the unevidenced imaginings of ones mind might possibly exist by some miracle of coincidence this would seem unlikely at best. No?Note: - UNLIKELY. Not impossible. Boldening mine. "Evidence"?So are you now saying the supernatural is evidenced? Having previously (about 4 posts ago) unequivocally stated that the supernatural is definitely NOT evidenced in any way at all.All I ask is that your arguments are consistent.Please clarify how belief in the actual existence of the supernatural can be based on evidence if there is no evidence supporting the actual existence of the supernatural. Are you suggesting that we need to disprove the existence of the supernatural before dismissing it as unlikely?Can you disprove Buz's much derided concept of the supernatural?Can you disprove (for example) the claim that Yahweh of the OT is going to come along and reveal to us all how he created the universe 9,000 years ago with the appearance of being much older?Are these scenarios unlikely to actually occur? Not all beliefs are equally evidenced. I fear that you are going down the route of insisting that claims of the supernatural are made in a vacuum of evidence. I also fear that you are going down the route of insisting that nothing at all can be said about that which has not been disproven.Both are false assumptions. Please tell me you are not going down that route..........?

So I see.The problem seems to be with your rampantly inconsistent use of the term "evidence".When you want to berate people like Buz you seem quite happy to use the term "evidence" in the same way that I am applying it.However when you want to suggest that all beliefs are evidenced you seem to include any reason for belief, regardless of any considerations pertaining to accuracy or reliability, under the umbrella term "evidence".Which means that Buz's "story" (for example) is simultaneously both evidenced and un-evidenced by your use of the term.And then you get all haughty when it is pointed out that this doesn't really make any sense.

Yes. But what are you saying these myths and stories provide evidence of exactly?This remains very very unclear.If nothing else please clarify this one simple point.

So the stories provide evidence of the stories? Huh?It would seem that this ca mean only one of two things. Either:1) The stories provide evidence of the existence of the stories.OR2) The stories provide evidence of the reality of the entities and events that are told in the stories.If 1) you are making just about the most pointlessly circular tautological statement one can conceive of. If 2) you are claiming that the actual existence of the supernatural entities that the stories are about is evidenced by the stories themselves. But you have previously clearly stated that this is not what you mean.So is there a 3) that I am missing? If so what is it? You could make it a great deal clearer.You have to admit that "Stories are evidence of stories" is a pretty pointless answer.

But what are the stories evidence of?If the belief is that the supernatural actually exists then the stories are not evidence of that belief are they?Unless you are also advocating a causal relationship between the stories and the existence of the supernatural. Which you claim that you are not.Your whole "stories are evidence" thing is just a pointless tautology unless the stories are evidence of something other than the stories themselves.

So now we have that the beliefs are based on stories that are evidence that support the beliefs.This is tautological nonsense jar.Is that really all that your much vaunted position on mythos and stories amounts to?What are the stories evidence of? Why can you not answer this question in a manner that is not circular and tautological?

No. Let's point out that unless you can say what it is that these stories are actually evidence of - That you have no position at all.Let's point out that citing stories as evidence of stories is a rather silly and pointless thing to say.

Let's also point out that your haughty and superior demenour is wholly unjustified given your complete inability to demonstrate that your much cited "stories are evidence" is anything other than a giant tautology derived from circular thinking.The next time you feel compelled to cite myths and stories as evidence I suggest you consider what exactly you are citing them as evidence of - Before doing so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So basically you are advocating a supernatural explanation for the origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis) and the origin of the universe. Right?Can I ask on what basis you are suggesting that the supernatural is an appropriate explanation for these phenomenon?Can I also ask why you think a godly/supernatural explanation for these phenomenon is likely to fare any better than any of the other things that godly/supernatural explanations have been posited for in the past? (fertility, weather etc. etc. etc.)Do you think the god of the gaps argument is a sound argument?

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.

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.

You are veering off all over the place. Let's narrow this down.If, as you assert, supernatural means nothing more than currently unknown how can there be both supernatural and natural explanations to existing scientific questions?Are colliding branes a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe? Be specific. Why did you miss out the word "explanation"?I have never claimed that there are either any supernatural unknowns or phenomenon. I am saying that there are both natural and supernatural explanations being put forward.And that (as wrong headed as I think those supernatural explanations are) they are not the same as simply saying "it is unknown" or it is "naturalistically unexplaned" as you are asserting. No. Supernatural explanations exist. If you are simply saying that there are no supernatural phenomenon only natural phenomenon to which supernatural explanations have been posited then I agree wholeheartedly that this is almost certainly true.But those supernatural explanations are not just another way of saying "It is unknown" as you are asserting. Some supernatural explanations are detailed alternatives to naturalistic theories and those who believe in them claim to know a great deal (e.g. biblical creationists)As wrong as their supernatural explanations may be, saying that "supernatural" is synonomous with "naturalistic unknown" is simply untrue. Because you continue to think in terms of "supernatural phenomenon" (whatever that may be?) rather than supernatural explanations for phenomenon. So you think human feelings of awe require a supernatural explanation.Why?