Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

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?

Hi stragg, hope things are going good for you - if the question you proposed within the title of the OP could be restated as, 'Has The Hypothesis Derived From a Subjective and Literal Interpretation of Mythology Failed', I may likely agree. Additionally, I may suggest that the hypothesis itself is derived from employing a method which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms. First, there's a sense that the questions are not necessarily 'scientific questions' at all, but rather simply they are plain questions, and so, there are no 'supernatural' explanations to scientific questions as you present, but they're rather religious - or pseudoscientific, explanations to existing questions.For example, science attempts to answer existing questions employing the methods which correlate to its culture (ie. facts/observation). The religious culture also attempts to answer these same existing questions by employing the methods which correlate with its own culture (ie. tradition/myth).Separate cultures utilizing different methods of interpreting evidence, while examining the same phenomena, may tend to arrive at variant conclusions. Message 137, Message 150It seems any answers given to the origins of the universe which meet the demands of scientific criteria are certainly not 'supernatural' or mythological.The theories which are by that same criteria falsified within the scientific culture are, more simply put, irrelevant to the question (eg. pseudoscience). Holy shit - have you been equating a literal rendering of mythology with 'supernatural explanations' ?This seems to be why we may have been talking past each other to such a large extent, as you appear to be comparing what results in a rigid literal interpretation of mythology with the results arrived at by the methods of science as defined by the scientific culture, and quite honestly, I didn't realize that.That said, scripturally based creation science is not based on scripture in actual practice, but rather on traditional religious beliefs, which themselves are not necessarily rooted in biblical manuscripts in many cases, as you know; instead, appearing out of thin air at times or consisting of selective appropriating and nullifying of scriptures, which - as fate would have it, is the only way one can construct doctrine from the contradictions found in those various manuscripts.Perhaps we can agree a creationist who believes in creation as described literally in the book of Genesis is destined for bad science, that is - if what they do can even be granted that title, for it is almost always pseudoscience to start an investigation - after first coming to a foreordained conclusion, while basing it on conflicting genealogies found in an ancient contradictory document which is then purported to declare the world to be ‘6,000 years old' while continuing to look for evidence which must support The Truth^TM, and it is particularly bad form to base science on a pre-scientific ancient manuscript in the first place.A myth is a subjective interpretation of reality while science and history, requiring objective facts as they do, are something altogether different. I thought you were referring to phenomena such as levitation or invisbility cloaks as 'supernatural', and they seem to be rather definable within a scientific context. Perhaps it may be considered true, if one could find it agreeable that mythology is - and indeed has always been, the language of religion. As you vicariously suggest, this appears to be a lost possibility within a large portion of the yuhdean and christian traditions, submerged under the doctrine of inerrant history.In this way myth can then be drained of any inherent meaning as various schools of poli-religious apologists struggle in vain to prove that myth is inerrant as history, then allowing stories such as that of David and Goliath (ie. legendary and mythological in nature), etc., to be successsfully devoid of meaning.When myths become 'history' or 'science' not only is the language and meaning of myth lost, the scriptures themselves can then be held up to constant ridicule for their historical contradictions and errors of 'fact'. Mythology is becoming an unknown language within a large portion of the religious culture.There's a sense this is a double loss of sorts, because the meaning of a myth is found in that it is a myth, and it has no meaning in science or as history. So you see, in a way, what you are presenting as 'supernatural' explanations may be more synonomous with "naturalistic unknown" then is generally thought. A mythological explanation has religious meaning which is emotional and spiritual - as opposed to scientific meaning, and so, a myth has little to no value within the context of science or history, never having been historical or scientific, but rather a religious myth. I don't blame a lot of people for their reactionary backlash when they rage out at the word myth as though it was a dirty word like 'falsehood' or a 'lie'.Especially when taking into consideration the great lengths which many pseudoscientists go to in an attempt to equivocate the language of religion with veritable scientific data or historical probability; however, a myth is nevertheless just a means of usings symbols to communicate in religion, which does not make a myth false, but it obviously does not make a myth true in any historical or scientific sense either.I was not under the impression you were equivocating the rigid literalist interpretation of myth as 'supernatural', and so, you have my attention now.Apologies to you sir. No, I don't.The emotions and inherent feelings of awe contained within our collective consciousness attempt to define our existence and reality, themselves contained within our natural world; however, the mechanism by which the brain generates variant thoughts and feelings appears to me to remain largely undefined ...Would you care to answer the question posed?One LoveEdited 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

Hi Jar,When I was a kid I had this dog which was always eating pheasants on our front lawn. Now dogs are not known for catching birds but this dog had no shortage of these birds to eat.Basically my family considered that he some how could smell them on the ground and then would kill them. My Uncle Al was a big pheasant hunter and it would drive him crazy after hunting to see when stopping by our place all the pheasant my dog had caught.He asked my Dad if he could take the dog and train it to hunt for him. My Dad said "No, the dog doesn't need you to catch pheasant".One day I was out walking in the fields with the dog and he stopped. I did likewise. He then moved slowly foward and a pheasant sprang up in front of us. He jumped a good 5 1/2 ft. into the air and caught that pheasant by its tail and killed and ate it.Never seen anything like it, then or since. I'm the only one who ever saw the dog do this. No one else ever saw him do this.You know I can't realy test this story scientifically since the dog died when I was 24 and now I'm 61.On RAZD's scale of 1-7 (strong theist-strong atheist), I'm a complete 1 on this story. It would be insane to be otherwise, since I saw it happen.I can see how others might take any stand from 1 to 7 on it and I don't see that as being irrational since their viewpoint and expierence may be different. Although a 7 might make me wonder about a person since they at least have this story as evidence. Discounting my story for no reason would make me think there is some psychological problem at work there.At any rate please feel free to use this story as evidence that my dog actually existed and that is how he hunted pheasant.Can the same be done with God's existence? If you say "No" please make sure you have looked EVERYWHERE you can in the physical universe. Because if I can point out a place you didn't look, and you don't know about or understand, you are not going to look to smart.BTW I'm a 1 on God's existence, based on the evidence I have, others may not be, but I'm sure I can show they haven't looked at all, in which case who cares what they think.Be happy to pass the story and methodology along if you are interested....or not if you're not.petrophysicsEdited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

Always open to someone supplying evidence that some god or God is real. Just haven't found anyone who can offer such evidence yet.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Problems with this:
a) The story relates to a historic event. God is not, as far as most people are concerned, a historic event. The only religious people who would fit into that category would, as far as I know, be Deists and Deism is not refutable.
b) The story is testable. It is possible to test at least some parts of the story. For example, is it physically possible for a dog to jump 5.5 ft in the air? If the answer is no then it matters not what the story teller thinks he saw, the story is false. If the answer is yes then the story remains possible. The problem with many versions of the God hypothesis is that they fail those parts of the hypothesis which can be tested.
c) The latter part of your argument is simply the 'god of the gaps' argument in a slightly different format.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Very few people will outright claim that any particular deity absolutely does not exist. Those who do claim as such, I personally put right up there with the evangelical types.On the flip side, for those who absolutely claim their deity DOES exist, yet can provide no evidence or provide only claims, are just as loony. I would certainly hope you have pictures of yourself with your dog so as to not rely on this second telling of a story as evidence for his/her existence. Can you provide something similar for your deity of choice?

---

Your starting position here was that supernatural has no meaning in and of itself and that it is simply a label used to refer to something that is lacking naturalistic explanation. In response it is my contention that in fact describing an explanation as supernatural does have conceptual meaning and that no matter how wrong or evidentially silly such beliefs may be, supernatural is not simply used as a placeholder or synonym for unknown.Now this entire debate site (note the name — Evolution Vs Creation) is primarily dedicated to the argument between those who advocate supernatural explanations Vs those who advocate naturalistic ones. The topics over which this debate rages do include some scientific unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) but they also include phenomenon to which science provides very definite answers (e.g. the origins of species). Even a cursory perusal of some of the topics on display should demonstrate to you that supernaturalists (e.g. biblical creationists) are not simply advocating a position of it is unknown. They are instead advocating explanations that are alternatives to, and which in many cases entirely contradict, scientific naturalistic explanations.Now I think that supernaturalists are wrong. I believe that supernaturalistic explanations are little more than imagined nonsense. But your original assertion that supernaturalist beliefs amount to nothing more than describing something as unknown is patently false. And your point is what? Tell what question you are posing and I will.

Guys, suggestion....Supernatural - un-evidenced (apart from personal testimony), in contravention of known laws of physics and immune from, or avoiding analysis by, the scientific method, either by design or by circumstance. Likely to be 'personal' and dependent on subjective interpretation/experience.
Examples - personal accounts of psi powers, spirit manifestations/ghosts, creationism.Natural but currently unexplained - evidenced (at least some evidence beyond personal testimony), possibly requiring extension to known laws of physics and testable in principle using the scientific method.
Examples - animals sensing earthquakes, some UFO sightings, string/superstring theory.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Hi Jar,You probably haven't found a single person who has seen a dog like mine who could catch pheasants.Your lack of observation has nothing at all to do with the existence of my dog and the way he hunted.This is going to take me a bit of time to present in shortened form, but presenting everything I think needs to be shown, so you understand what I am talking about.It's possible you may still not get it, but I will do my best, to show you what I did and how it works.The evidence for God"s existence is in you, not me, I'll just show you a way to find it.You can look and try it if you like....and see if I'm correct. If you find the same things I have, it adds to my evidence....if not, that's fine as well, just let me know. I'm always willing to look and learn.My next story to you will be fairly long, as it concerns a fair part of my life, but I'll try and get it done this evening after fishing.Pay attention to HOW the atheists here try and counter my arguments. You will see a pattern....both you and RAZD have come up against it many times over the last several months."Has the Supernatural Hypothesis Failed"......No...not unless you create a "Strawman"on what supernatural is, remove evidence on a whim if it doesn't fit your POV, and assume you have looked at and KNOW EVERYTHING in the physical universe.I'll be back. Let's see if these boys have looked at everything.petrophysics

quote:

---

Pay attention to HOW the atheists here try and counter my arguments. You will see a pattern....both you and RAZD have come up against it many times over the last several months.

---

I wasn't aware that I was conforming to a pattern. I thought my objections were coherent, considered and perfectly reasonable, as well as being fairly obvious. How it is part of a pattern and what is that pattern?

But your lack of evidence gives me a reason to disbelieve you, if I choose. A dog that hunts is something I may decide to just take your word about, but then I may not if you have a history of prevarication and dishonesty. Without evidence it's my choice. We don't have to "know everything" to know when a proposition hasn't been supported by evidence.

Are you asking us to worship your dog? Are you saying we will burn in a lake of fire for eternity if we don't believe your story? It's a story about a dog, dude. Hardly comparable to that of one about the walking dead who performed miracles. Your equivocation is a weak one. Religionists are the only bunch who claim knowledge on everything. The ONLY members on this site who claim to know everything are......wait for it........wait for it......Creationists and bible thumpers.

---

Hi stragg ..The way the debate regarding creation seems to be engaged is that certain people believe that if the product of the right wing religious political movement - which is the 'Biblical story of creation', can destroy the heathenous ToE, the former will then somehow be proved correct by default.Here's to hoping that your intention with regards to this thread doesn't contain the same false dichotomy .. Almost. That's a starting point for many who have entertained discussion within this thread, although I didn't initially realize you were targeting creo dogma. I feel I'm in pretty good company being in agreement with the likes of Larni (Message 7), JUC (Message 8), nwr (Message 9), oni (Message 265), etc..Additionally, I didn't claim 'supernatural has no meaning in and of itself and that it is simply a label', but rather (Message 147) 'What we have are two distinct cultures describing the same phenomena {or attempting to answer existing questions} .. in different ways that correlate to each culture's methodologies'. Everything has meaning, however this thread has effectively demonstrated that the meaning of 'supernatural' is all but completely subjective. Incorrect. You employ the 'supernatural' label in your description of explanations you don't validate (ie. creationists render mythology in a literal sense).Thus, it has been demonstrated by even you exactly how the term is employed as little more than linguistic fodder, regardless of you're refusal to identify the process. As was explained in Message 152, as well as many other messages by other contributors, the 'supernatural' concept is a catch all of sorts.Now, while this does little to support a conclusion that 'supernatural' - as a valid concept, is anything other than a linguistic place filler, it goes the distance demonstrating the elasticity and subjective nature of the concept itself and how it is used to describe natural occurences that are not understood well. Describing the 'Ol' Mother Hubbard' fable as a literal and historical event does not make it so; much less does it make such an explanation 'supernatural'.One needn't refer to an explanation as 'supernatural', providing they identify, understand and validate the process that is achieving the description.Again, what creationists bring to the table isn't 'supernatural', but rather it is very natural and explainable. I don't think so. You agree with them - at least in part, in your shared beliefs that the results of a literal rendering of mythological tales is 'supernatural'.You also agree with them that if 'God provided the spark of life - {that} Would be a supernatural explanation to that unknown' (Message 138).However, you ignored me repeatedly (Message 141, Message 150, etc.) rather than support why it is that you believe and claim that. You've been shown otherwise, as the creeds beheld by creo's aren't pulled from imaginations, but rather from pre-scientific ancient manuscripts.As well, indigenous peoples conclude fire is magic or 'supernatural' because their culture is employing different methods than scientists'. Nobody stated that creo beliefs and explanations are 'supernatural' except you and repeating yourself ad nauseum does little to support your position. While creo beliefs haven't been suggested as 'supernatural' or unknown by me, I did suggest in what way they may be considered completely natural. Again, I originally thought you were describing phenomena such as levitation or invisiblity as 'supernatural' and they're both definable within nature.So please ..

• Should one believe human feelings of extraordinary awe may develop an authoritative natural explanation or that they require a 'supernatural' one?
  ​
• How do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?
  ​
• 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?

See bold .. See list ..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

The length and rambling nature of your posts are making them almost incomprehensible.I still have no idea why you think human feelings of awe require any supernatural cause. Or even what you think "supernatural" means.My use of the term supernatural is as follows: An adjective to describe the attributes of being inherently materially inexplicable as a result of being neither derived from nor subject to natural laws.The divine and miraculous concept of Jesus Christ is an example of a supernatural concept. The fact I don't think this entity actually exists has no bearing on whether it can be accurately described as "supernatural" or not.Your questions. Why do you think they would they require a supernatural explanation? Because the concept of God in question meets the criteria of being supernatural given above.The fact I don't think this entity actually exists has no bearing on whether it can be accurately described as "supernatural" or not. Human brain activity? Do you think such feelings are possible without the material apparatus of the brain? Are you suggesting that a supernatural cause of such feelings is required simply because you personally know of no natural one?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From Message 91 and upthread from that. In response (and editing out the various histrionics) you say: Yes your argument applies to all situations in which an evidenced natural explanation is pitted against an alternative which requires the existence of an unevidenced and unfalsifiable supernatural cause.Given that we can posit alternative unevidenced supernatural causes to every single scientific explanation you have succeeded in invalidating the whole of science. By the terms of your argument we can no confidence in any scientific conclusion at all.Well done. You can reword things to make them sound more reasonable as much as you like. It remains the case that by the terms of your argument we can never have any confidence in electrical resistance as the naturalistic explanation for the source of light and heat in filament bulbs because we cannot disprove the unevidenced and unfalsifiable supernatural possibilities. Possibilities such as, but not limited to, ethereal salamanders sneakily emulating the effects of electrical resistance.Now do you really think that all scientific conclusions are heuristic and unworthy of confidence? Do you really have no confidence in electrical resistance as the source of heat and light in filament bulbs?Or have you just talked yourself into a hole?