Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

to me supernatural is something that defies the laws of this world.gods tend to defie them a lot so they are supernatural an all the other fictunal creatures whit super powers do to

You are making excuses to try to evade the obvious fact that your earlier statement was silly.Significant parts of our lives are spent with cultural constructs. Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Little Red Riding Hood, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy - those are just a few examples. It makes no sense to say that they are supernatural. The idea of supernatural is itself a cultural construct. But not every cultural construct counts as supernatural.

But that's really the point, Jon. With claims about the supernatural, unlike other claims, it has not yet been established that there's a real difference between the two.

Hello, can you name me just one supernatural claim that does NOT sound fishy?

Anything that defies the laws of physics or natural laws of this universe. Anything that is able to manifest itself in our reality without being subject to the laws of chemistry or physics. Anything that prevades or extends beyond the scope of our universe and yet is able to manifest itself in our reality. Anything that is considered a fact but has no basis in fact or evidence that can be verified or explained or theorized by any known respected field of scientific study. Any bull shit that some ignorant person pulls out of they're ass used to give explaination of something they do not understand but are to lazy to actually try and find a rational scientific explanation for. I think that about covers it for now but I am open for more suggestions.

A human says god/s exist in a supernatural realm - that's not a supernatural claim. That's a blind assertion. For there to be a supernatural claim, first we need to establish that there is a supernatural realm.- Oni

I made no excuse. Some claims regarding gods are natural, some claims regarding gods are supernatural. Some claims regarding math are natural; some claims regarding math are supernatural. We look at the claim and decide from there. Is the whole system of math supernatural? Sure, in as much as its content has no necessary connection to the natural world whatsoever; it's like a languagethey're just made up and have nothing to do with the real world. They can be applied to the real world, in which case we test that application (the application being the content of the claim).Again, though, we're not talking about the claim itself or the communicative system employed to make the claim; we're just talking about its content. I guess this depends, then, on how one defines supernatural. In what way do you consider the supernatural to be a cultural construct?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

The only way people know about it, is via the culture. There is no natural source of evidence.In my view, that makes it a cultural construct.

Interesting; this is my understanding of what constitutes 'supernatural'. Either way you call it'cultural constructs' or 'supernatural'would you say the content of these things is something with which science should not concern itself? If it's clear that Sherlock Holmes is simply a fictional story, is it proper to investigate on it using the scientific method and then draw conclusions on it based on whether or not the things it contains are evidenced?I'm quite convinced doing so would be not just wrong, but meaning- and purposeless.JonEdited by Jon, : Less Not...

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Seems pedantic to me. As if there is some unwritten rule or guide book that states a supernatural claim is not satisfied unless one can show evidence of a supernatural realm. Where would I find this rule book of supernatural claims, the hogwart library? The whole point of pleading the supernatural is to skirt the evidence or lack thereof. By asserting something supernatural exist, or has occured you in essence trump any need to resort to facts or evidence or natural laws. No realms or alternate plains of reality need apply.

There actually are groups that study Sherlock Holmes, though I would not call it a scientific study.When I used "cultural constructs", I was not limiting myself to fiction. The games of golf, football, baseball, chess and many others are also cultural constructs. Sure, they also have a physical footprint, but there is a lot more involved in the games than the physical events.I would guess that anthropologists and psychologists do have reasons to scientifically study some cultural constructs.

If something is imperceptible that means that it is unknowable. Possibly they are. But that is another thread. Dark energy is not a baseless proposition. Asking and seeking to investigate what may constitute dark matter or be the form/cause of dark energy is not the same as the baseless dead end proposition that "somethingsupernaturaldidit" as an answer to anything. Well that has been my position from the beginning of this thread with regard to the actual existence of the supernatural as the cause of anything.Including the cause of human conceptions of the supernatural.

I still don't see how you can claim that the term "god" is meaningless just because there are multiple god concepts in existence. Exactly as do individual god concepts. The fact that believers think any of their nonsense is real is beside the point. Being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing. That depends on the particular god cited. The more intelligent the theist the more they resort to cloaking the god concepts they cite in increasingly sophisticated ambiguity. Especially in the face of scientific understanding. How do you think the concept of deism came about? Because individual concepts of gods are very specific. Thor is a specific god concept as is Zeus, Yahew et al. But they are all gods.No different to spider-man, superman, wolverine as individual examples of superheros. "God" is just an umbrella term for such concepts. No different to "superhero" as the umbrella noun for individual superhero concepts. Why do you think the existence of multiple god concepts makes the term "god" meaningless?The term "god" is generally used to refer to a powerful supernatural conscious being who holds dominion over some aspect of reality. Whether it be an aspect of nature (e.g. fire, weather, fertility, universe creation etc.) or some aspect of some supernatural realm (the afterlife or the godly realm itself e.g. Valhalla or Olympus or wherever). In the case of monotheistic religions one being is responsible for (almost) everything and gets called "God". In polytheistic religions there can be numerous gods each responsible for different things. Sufficiently advanced aliens might be mistaken for gods but unless they are supernatural (i.e. neither derived from nor limited by natural law) they aren't gods by any definition I have ever seen. Who points to the Sun and says "That is god"? Who are you talking about?Apollo was the Sun god of the Greeks. Ra the Egyptians. Sol the Vikings. Surya the Hindus etc. etc. etc.Point at the Sun and ask "what is that" and all of these mythologies will tell you that it is the Sun (in their own language - obviously). And then they will expand on that by saying it is Apollo driving his flaming chariot across the sky. Or whatever.Specific concepts Oni. All gods. But multiple god concepts no more makes the term "god" meaningless than the existence of multiple superhero concepts makes the term "superhero" meaningles. Well you can have a god of anything. So what?The term "god" is still being used to refer to a powerful supernatural conscious being who holds dominion over some aspect of nature.We call these concepts "gods". That isn't meaningless. So are superheros.You know full well I am not gonna disagree with that. But being wrong about the existence of gods is not the same as the term being "meaningless".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So as far as you are concerned it is illogical and evidentially invalid to conclude that gravity is unlikley to be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after you respond to this post. So you are totally agnostic to the notion that gravity will be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after you respond to this post but utterly confident that gravity will continue as per usual 30 seconds after you respond to this post.Can you not see a problem here CS?

Well I cannot argue with any of that. Points well made.I just wish it were as easy in practise as you make it sound.Because you only have to read this thread to see that a large number of people here just take it as read that anything designed to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable is deserving of utter agnosticism of the sort that says we can make no statement of belief either way. And any argument to the contrary is treated as obviously extreme in some sense.I think it ultimately comes down to the difference between those that take each proposition and decide how knowable or unknowable it is based on it's details, and those who simply ask "on what basis is this proposition even to be considered"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.