Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Given that this has been my consistent position regarding any completetely unevidenced supernatural claim throughout this thread and many others it has everything to do with it. So what?If something is as yet unfalsified why does it's future potential falsification (or otherwise) affect how likely you think it is to be correct?

As in, come up with a reference that is coincidentally an accurate description of an insensible referent? Highly unlikely. Sure, minus the negative connotations that your phrasing implies. But what of it?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

You are avoiding my question. I requested that you either confirm that your use of the term supernatural is in line with the way you have previously defined it or define it in some other way. Unless you are defining 'supernatural' now as 'anything that is inconsistent with co-current material evidence', confidences in the potential veracity of future claims has nothing to do with the topic of supernatural hypotheses.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

Sure. But what humans think is supernatural in the sense of being materially detectable changes as knowledge progresses.What was once "unknowable" and materially unable to be investigated, what was once attributed to the supernatural, is now not. That is kinda the point. Have you read the OP at all? At the time of writing the proposition that gravity will be supernaturally suspended in a weeks time is just as unfalsified and just as "unknowable" as any other supernatural claim.Of course I have made the rather radical step of making my claim obvioulsy testable where most supernaturalists seek to do quite the opposite.This is because I want to know just how agnostic they really are about unevidenced unfalsified claims.

The minus connotations of being desperately unreliable and subject to desire and confirmation bias you mean? The negative connotation of being almost certainly wrong?Those negative connotations?

You still haven't laid out a clear definition. If this was meant to be a definition, it didn't offer much in the way of understanding. I am still uncertain as to what this 'supernatural' is to which you keep referring. I am quite convinced that it is not the same as the 'supernatural' you earlier defined, but not sure what else to make of it. Are you claiming that all things unevidenced are 'supernatural'? Are you saying that all things not proven true in the empirical sense and through empirical means are 'supernatural'? Yes, I didn't see a definition there, and don't see one now, so here it is again: Can you please define 'supernatural' as you use it in your recent posts? You earlier defined it very clearly, but you now skirt around the matter for reasons I cannot surmise. Whatever they might be, though, I cannot continue debating this unless a definition is put forth; I feel that until we understand what one another is saying, it will be impossible to engage in a productive debate.You've made a lot of other comments that need to be addressed, and so soon as you lay out your definition, I can go back and address them.Until then... spaghetti time... though with rotini, because the FSM hates me and did not leave me a present in my cupboard this weekend on his voyage around the world. 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

Entirely imperceptible entities which have no observable effect on material reality must necessarily be products of human imagination even if by some absolute miracle of coincidence they do actually exist.You seem to agree with this so I am not sure what your point is. I have repeatedly said what I mean by supernatural throughout this thread. That which is neither derived from nor subject to natural laws and which is thus materially inexplicable. Then you are wrong. Well when you do so bear in mind the following:1) We are talking about supernatural causes. Thor is a supernatural being by the terms of the definition above. The fact that we have found a naturalistic explanation for thunder etc. effectively refutes this supernatural cause. But that doesn't make Thor not a supernatural concept now does it?You seem to be conflating materially inexplicable causes (e.g. Thor) with phenomenon which have turned out to be materially explicable (e.g. thunder).2) At the time of writing the following proposition is as unevidenced and unfalsified as any other supernatural claim. Gravity will be supernaturally suspended this time next month.This is a supernatural claim because the causal agent is supernatural and "unknowable". We cannot investigate this claim materially prior to the event itself. It will either happen or it won't. The fact that the phenomenon itself is ultimately testable does not stop this being a supernatural claim as you seem to be suggesting.In fact the only evidential difference between this and any other supernatural claim is that I have taken the radical step of making my supernatural claim testable.Anyway - I say this proposition, like all other wholly unevidenced supernatural propositions, is deeply deeply improbable.What do you say?

Of course I don't think gravity is going to stop. But having the position of 'its always been this way so its going to continue to be' is not the same as a valid conclusion of the probability based on inductive logic of the observed evidence.Too, something as mundane as gravity continuing to operate is not on the same evidential level as something supernatural never having happened.

But this proposition hasn’t been falsified has it? Which makes your confidence in this conclusion completely at odds with absolutely everything you have ever argued about being necessarily and rationally agnostic towards unfalsified possibilities. I can quote you extensively on this if you want me to? Then it is a good job that nobody but you is making that rather stupid argument. Is that really the basis upon which you have discarded the possibility of gravity being supernaturally suspended in the near future?Or do you think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that this whole proposition is far more likely to be a fantasy scenario concocted by the human mind than anything with any actual basis in reality?If you are dismissing this unevidenced unfalsified supernatural possibility as deeply improbable — Then on what basis are you making this conclusion? Be very very specific. The only evidential difference between the supernatural proposition that I have put forward (i.e. that gravity will be supernaturally suspended this time next week) and any specific supernatural claim made by anybody else is that mine is ultimately testable.That is the only difference. So until it is tested why do you make any distinction between this particular unevidenced unfalsified supernatural claim and any other in terms of reliability or accuracy?I suspect you cannot answer this question without some serious special pleading.

First, thanks for answering Jon on the immaterial entity and non-detection. As always you explained it and defended the position a lot better than I do...with 'yo bad self. Moving on... The concepts themselves, sure, can be anything you want. It can be an invisible rabbit or a guy weilding a hammer that causes thunder. But that is specific to the concept, and separate from what a god is.To a diest a god is an ambiguous thing undefined and undetectable who's abilities include, but are not limited to, creating universe/s.To a Greek, god is a guy that pulls the Sun across the sky with his chariot or smashes his hammer to create thunder.In each case we have two very detailed concepts both representing the same ambiguous word. So are they both equally sufficent concepts to define the word god? Is there anything that would not make for a good concept of god? You're right, the term has meaning within the topic of religion and faith - and more specifically when discussing a particular religion and not just generalizing. But "god" him/herself has no meaning, or no one single meaning, or limit, it can be whatever you want it to be. God can be Apollo on a chariot, an invisible rabbit, a spaghetti monster or an ambiguous energy that creates universe/s and then goes back to being a recluse listening to emo music. At which point, when looking at the overall use of the term, it loses meaning. I'm not the Messiah! I mean that in the sense that anything can be clasified as a god, there isn't one specific thing that qualifies something as a god. Unlike superheros who have a specific requirement, god/s can be anything a group wants it to be, as I explain above.A god isn't just a creator of universe/s, it can be a guy on a chariot that brings the Sun up, a guy who makes thunder, the force behind volcanoes, an eclipse, movement of the planets, what moves the tides, what inspires love, etc, etc, etc.It can either be an invisible force that works in nature, an ambiguous energy that kick-starts universe/s, an actual dude with a hammer, or a woman that guilds fertility - any of that can be a god/dess.So, in the end, what does it actually mean, what is it actually describing?Within a specific religion or faith, sure, the term means something. But overall, as a whole, it remains, IMO, meaningless.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

How do you tell when something is supernatural? How can you tell that Thor is 'neither derived from nor subject to natural laws and thus materially inexplicable'?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

You listen to the claims. Folks pushing their various deities make all sorts of claims.Those claims can often be checked against real world evidence.So far claims for the supernatural have not been faring too well.Why try to make this more complicated than it is?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It's easy enough for you to say "I don't agree it is possible. Show me that it is.". And when RAZD or whoever disagrees - call him a pseudoskeptic until he shows the evidence If it is unknowable - just remind them that if they cannot know if it is possible either then they shouldn't claim it is.

Apparently you still don't understand my position. I don't think you necessarily have to be agnostic towards anything. This is about what is the rational position, that is the one that is a logical inference from the evidence. I don't think that the only rational position is agnosticism just because a possibility is unfalsifiable.My overall point is that your probability of the supernatural existing is not something you've calculated nor is it derived from a logical inference of the evidence so therefore it isn't a rational position. But that doesn't mean its totally unreasonable, just like my theistic belief isn't rational but too I don't think it is unreasonable. Like I said before, its a matter of opinion.And really, your position is just a post hoc rationalization, not an inference to begin with. I think that you don't believe in the supernatural so you've come up with this argument to rationalize that belief. Don't get me wrong, I think its a pretty good argument, it just turns out that your logic doesn't hold up. But it looks to me like that is what you think. The supernatural has always been outdone by naturalistic explanations ergo the supernatural has failed. Yeah, really. Gravity has been the exact same for my entire life and I think its going to continue to be that way. Not at all, in the slightest. I don't make any consideration about whether or not you made it up, it doesn't enter my thought process. Gravity has been the exact same for my entire life and I think its going to continue to be that way. Not technically a rational position, but oh well. False.Some other supernatural claims are made after something wierd has been observed and someone is trying to come up with some kind of explanation. You've just made up your claim as part of a debate tactic. You're not trying to explain anything you've observed that lead you to provide your scenario. First, because its always been the same, I just plain old doubt that gravity is going to change. Second, because its not something that has followed from any kind of observation at all. I just did.

The same way that I can tell that Jesus was born of a virgin and is the son of God.The concepts are defined by those who propose them.I think all such concepts are nothing more than products of the human mind. But those who think otherwise insist that they are supernatural in the way I have defined.