Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 226 of 432 (657743)
03-30-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Taq
03-30-2012 10:49 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Tag writes:
So does this count as an observation of the supernatural? Why not just call gravity supernatural since, like dark matter, we can not directly observe gravity, only its effects on surrounding objects.
Hi Taq.
I do think it is a observation. And as you stated the gravaton has yet to be discovered. But science has long shown gravity to be a natural force in our universe and imo doesn't qualify as supernatural, nor does the strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 10:49 AM Taq has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 227 of 432 (657744)
03-30-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
03-30-2012 10:47 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
You can watch a magician (entertainer) and record his every move including all of the preparation that went before performing the trick. Perhaps that will provide enough evidence to understand how the magic trick was created; but that is not studying magic.
If you know it's a trick beforehand then you are not studying magic. Obviously.
But in the case of the Leprechaun you may or may not be studying something supernatural. You don't know beforehand.
We can scientifically study the little green entity in question whether it is supernatural or not. We can study it because it, and it's abilities, are empirically detectable.
So to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it still doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 10:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:29 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 228 of 432 (657746)
03-30-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Taq
03-30-2012 10:53 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Tag writes:
The supernatural is irrelevant to how nature works since the supernatural has no discernable effect on nature.
According to some superstitious people this is not they're view. In fact some folks report all manner of ghost interacting with the physical world. Sure we can dismiss the claims as clap trap, but nonetheless the superstitions remain.
What if the supernatural operated in the realm of yet unseen dimensions and the interactions that are registered in our world are transient?
Kinda like the thought that Gravity in some other undetected dimension is such a extremely strong force; that it can be detected in our universe's dimensional plane as relatively weak.
Would undetected dimensional forces be able to have influences in our universe?
Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 10:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 12:52 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 229 of 432 (657748)
03-30-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing?
Numbers writes:
No.
Right. So then there can be something which is supernatural (i.e. inherently inexplicable in natural terms) but which is detectable. And if something is empirically detectable it is able to be investigated using the methods of science.
So, in principle at least, there is nothing to stop us investigating supernatural beings and events scientifically is there?
Numbers writes:
As of yet it is still inexplicable how abiogenesis occurred and yet we know it did.
Don't conflate "inexplicable" (i.e. inherently unable to be explained) with "unexplained" (i.e. able to be explained but presently lacking explanation)
Numbers writes:
We can detect the effects of quantum entanglement and yet it baffles and is inexplicable.
Do you mean inexplicable or unexplained?
Numbers writes:
These concepts are not supernatural but are a mystery.
Being a mystery doesn't mean they are supernatural. Correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:52 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 11:31 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 230 of 432 (657750)
03-30-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Straggler
03-30-2012 11:02 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Again even with the leprechaun you are not studying the supernatural. You are still just studying the natural aspects of some object.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:02 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:45 AM jar has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 231 of 432 (657751)
03-30-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Straggler
03-30-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
So, in principle at least, there is nothing to stop us investigating supernatural beings and events scientifically is there?
No.
Don't conflate "inexplicable" (i.e. inherently unable to be explained) with "unexplained" (i.e. able to be explained but presently lacking explanation)
Dude, why would something be inherently unable to be explained? And if something is inherently unable to be explained then it is by definition both unexplained and inexplicable.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. unexplained - not explained; "accomplished by some unexplained process"
undetermined - not yet having been ascertained or determined; "of undetermined species"
2. unexplained - having the reason or cause not made clear; "an unexplained error"
incomprehensible, inexplicable - incapable of being explained or accounted for; "inexplicable errors"; "left the house at three in the morning for inexplicable reasons"

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:19 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:40 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 232 of 432 (657752)
03-30-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 11:31 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Numbers writes:
Dude, why would something be inherently unable to be explained?
Because it is supernatural as "supernatural" is commonly defined and conceived by those who believe in such things.
I doubt jar (for example) thinks that understanding the nature of the god he believes in is just a matter of scientific progress or building a big enough particle accelerator. Likewise the god Buz believes in. In fact I have never met a supernaturalist yet who doesn't define the object of their beliefs as being materially inexplicable in some sense.
That's why they are called supernatural beliefs.....
Numbers writes:
And if something is inherently unable to be explained then it is by definition both unexplained and inexplicable.
Sure. But that which is unexplained is not necessarily inexplicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 11:31 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 12:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 233 of 432 (657754)
03-30-2012 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
03-29-2012 8:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
I have no idea or an idea of how that could be tested, as this and many other threads should make clear.
This has nothing to do with testing, this is purely a definitional issue.
Well I could eat the cake and say that the cake was real and very natural, but all I could say about the "magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor" is that it was something I cannot explain.
You could eat and say it was real. How could you say it was natural? It wasn't cooked in an oven, there were no eggs or flour or any other ingredients mixed together.
That is not a "natural" cake. At least, I definitely wouldn't classify it as such.
Nope. It's unexplained.
Can something be both supernatural and unexplained? Your answer implies supernatural doesn't exist, but I know that's not your position.
Is God supernatural? Nope, just unexplained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 8:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:53 AM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 234 of 432 (657756)
03-30-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
03-30-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
Again even with the leprechaun you are not studying the supernatural.
How do you know the Leprechaun isn't supernatural?
jar writes:
You are still just studying the natural aspects of some object.
We are studying an entity that may or may not be supernatural and it's abilities which may or may not be supernatural.
On what basis do you insist otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:29 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:54 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 235 of 432 (657757)
03-30-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Perdition
03-30-2012 11:42 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
You could eat and say it was real. How could you say it was natural? It wasn't cooked in an oven, there were no eggs or flour or any other ingredients mixed together.
That is not a "natural" cake. At least, I definitely wouldn't classify it as such.
But what I have that can be tested is a cake. I can chemically analyze it and even tell what components went into it. The cake is completely normal.
Now the source is "unknown" and that's about all we can say about that.
Can something be both supernatural and unexplained? Your answer implies supernatural doesn't exist, but I know that's not your position.
Is God supernatural? Nope, just unexplained.
Unknown is a very broad term and yes, something supernatural is also unexplained. But considering what humans can say they know or can study, all that I can say about GOD is "Yes, God is unexplained and I see no way I can study God".
That GOD exists and is also supernatural is a belief and at least as long as I am alive I cannot imagine any way that I could ever test or study GOD or anything that is truly supernatural.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Perdition, posted 03-30-2012 11:42 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Perdition, posted 03-30-2012 12:34 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 236 of 432 (657758)
03-30-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
03-30-2012 11:45 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
I never said I know the leprechaun is not supernatural, what I said is that we can only study those aspects that are natural. We have no way to study the supernatural.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:59 AM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 237 of 432 (657760)
03-30-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by jar
03-30-2012 11:54 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
I never said I know the leprechaun is not supernatural, what I said is that we can only study those aspects that are natural.
I described to you the study of the Leprechauns teleporting abilities. I don't see how you can know that the Leprechauns teleporting abilities are natural?
jar writes:
We have no way to study the supernatural.
So you keep blanket asserting. But if the supernatural entity or phenomenon in question is empirically detectable - Why on Earth not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 12:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 238 of 432 (657761)
03-30-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Straggler
03-30-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
I doubt jar (for example) thinks that understanding the nature of the god he believes in is just a matter of scientific progress or building a big enough particle accelerator.
Ok, but one doesn't have to probe the physical existence of God to find natural examples of the inexplicable. QM is loaded with examples.
In fact I have never met a supernaturalist yet who doesn't define the object of their beliefs as being materially inexplicable in some sense.
That's why they are called supernatural beliefs.....
Yes now your getting it! And I might add that a naturalist can define the objects of his study as completely natural. Thats why they are called naturalist. Hmmm I see a pattern here.
I am a monist though I believe it is all one stuff. And when you get right down to it there isn't even stuff. It is all maya. It is not that big a stretch for someone to equate this with a all encompassing deity such as a god/gods or your chosen comfort food.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 12:12 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 239 of 432 (657762)
03-30-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Straggler
03-30-2012 11:59 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
I described to you the study of the Leprechauns teleporting abilities. I don't see how you can know that the Leprechauns teleporting abilities are natural?
Good thing that I didn't make that claim then.
What I said was that we can only study what was natural. We can observe that the thing being study was here and then appeared over there. Being here is normal, being there is normal, getting from her to there is "unexplained" and so far you have not shown how that part gets studied.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 12:22 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 240 of 432 (657763)
03-30-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Numbers writes:
It is not that big a stretch for someone to equate this with a all encompassing deity such as a god/gods or your chosen comfort food.
Is this all-encompassing thing inherently unable to be scientifically investigated and understood?
If not then it doesn't meet one of the main criteria that supernaturalists attach to the object of their beliefs and so I'm not convinced that your monism is the all encompassing answer you seem to think it is.
Numbers writes:
Ok, but one doesn't have to probe the physical existence of God to find natural examples of the inexplicable. QM is loaded with examples.
Is it? I am unaware of anything in QM that is inherently inexplicable rather than just something to be investigated. What did you have in mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 12:00 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 12:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024