Summations Only

How can a natural effect have a supernatural cause? If a magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor and landed on your driveway to poof a cake into existence and hand it to you, you'd call the cake natural? If so, then we have vastly different ideas of what is or is not supernatural. Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?If it is, then measuring its weight, though weight is not a supernatural attribute, is still measuring something supernatural, namely the leprechaun.If it isn't, then again, we have vastly different definitions of what is supernatural.To me, something is supernatural if it can do or was caused by something that violates natural laws such as the conservation of mass/energy.

This has nothing to do with testing, this is purely a definitional issue. 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. 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.

Does god interact with the world? If He/She/It does, can we not, in principle, see those interactions (even if we don't recognize them) and couldn't seeing those interactions also, in principle, tell us something about god?I would consider that studying god, because it would be able to tell us something about god. And if god is supernatural, then studying the natural effects of the supernatural will tell us something about the supernatural. But that's not all we can say. We can say the source is capable of producing a cake that gives off such and such signatures.

You don't have to know, you just have to observe, and despite what you know or don't know, you've observed something supernatural, or something that is the result of something supernatural. True, but you can observe the doctor trying another test, or see the person pause. You don't know that you've seen anything supernatural, but that doesn't mean you haven't. You can see the effects, without realizing you are. You may have observed 17 supernatural events today without realizing it. You may have even been a participant in one or some of them.Knowing what you're seeing is not a prerequisite. As I said before, seeing the natural effects of a supernatural act can, in principle, tell us that the supernatural act is capable of causing that natural effect.Now, if you posit that a supernatural being or event is incapable of causing an effect that is obviously strange, then it may be that, despite the fact that it is in prinicple possible, it is not possible in practice.If you posit that supernatural events or beings can cause a natural event that is obviously strange, then it is quite possible for someone with a supernatural belief to notice that the thing is strange and make the observation, "If that event was caused by a supernatural cause, then we now can say that a supernatural event is capable of causing that effect." This conclusion may be held with very little confidence, scientifically speaking, but it is still a valid observation to make.

Ok, I believe this will be my last substantive post on this topic for a while, since I think what I'm about to say is undebatable, but I could be wrong.To take this down to its very basics: something happens, let's label it Event A.When you observe Event A, you are now logically justified, and inassailably correct to state, "Whatever caused Event A is capable of causing Event A."If anyone disputes this statement, then either they are disagreeing just to disagree, in which case further discussion is unprofitable, or despite appearances, we are speaking different languages, in which case further discussion is impossible.So, I assume you will agree with the prior statement.If you do so agree, then the statement is knew knowledge about the cause, namely that it is capable of causing Event A, and this is true no matter the cause.If the cause is supernatural, and you've asserted that there can be supernatural causes, then you now have new knowledge about something supernatural. You probably won't know it's about anything supernatural, it's trivial knowledge, and not particularly useful, but you didn't say that we were incapable of usefully studying the supernatural, so I feel this proves the point that your blanket statement is wrong.

It has trivial information content, but it is new information. The cause. I know that it can cause Event A. Why should I have to? You didn't specify what type of information you could or couldn't study about the supernatural, you said you can't study anything about the supernatural. This is a trivial, but no less correct, counter to that absolute claim. You didn't know Event A could be caused by the cause, now you do.

That's a general truth, but you don't necessarily know the specific truth.For instance, based on your above statement, you could say that you know that the cause of the Titanic not sinking at 2:20 AM on April 15, 1912 was capable of causing the Titanic not to sink at 2:20 AM on April 15, 1912. But that statement would not be true, as the Titanic did sink at 2:20 AM on April 15, 1912.So, the truth of the statement "The cause of Event A is capable of causing Event A" is only true in the case that Event A happens. So, Event A happens, the statement becomes truth, you now know it to be true, your knowledge has increased.Again, I concede that this knowledge is trivial and not useful, but it is true. I also think you can build from this to greater truths, but until you are willing to accept that this is true, even trivially true, then we're at an impasse.

You don't find it problematic to have to doubt any evidence found? So, presumably, we find the person whose fingerprints match those found, but if god planted them, this person may not actually be guilty. You don't find that problematic?

If god can plant evidence, as you claim to believe, doesn't that mean any and all evidence could be planted? Shouldn't that add at least a little doubt? It would for me if I believed what you believe in this case. Yeah, but if you truly believe that knowledge to be suspect, then you would have to take all knowledge with a grain of salt.

The difference is that, while I admit the possibility, I don't actually believe it's true. if I did, I would act on that belief.Jar says he believes that God can plant evidence. That should make him suspect all evidence. Exactly my point. You don't believe it, despite remainging open to the possibility. If you did believe it...besides probably being locked up in a padded room somewhere...wouldn't you act differently?

Science may, but legal systems don't. Should murderers and other criminals be able to get off by claiming that any and all evidence showing they committed the crime was potentially planted by god? If you believe that possibility and were on the jury, it should give you enough doubt to let them off. That's because you uinderstand the physics and have literally millions of examples of sitting on chairs with which to proceed with confidence. If I believed that it was possible that not only would the chair not support my weight, but there may not even be a chair there, I probably wouldn't sit.

I never said what you would do. I said what you should do, but maybe I should rephrase that as what I would do in your position. But you don't have to bvelieve that it was only that you have reasonable doubt. And you can investigate those claims and find if there is reason to believe them or not. You claim that you can't investigate the claim that god planted it, so how do you determine whether god did or not. Do you just believe that while god can plant evidence, he never does? That seems kind of weak to me. Usually because the prosecution does an adequate job of proving that nothing was planted. Again, not possible for god, under your beliefs. You've said that magicians are using tricks. So, I presume you didn't actually see people sitting in chairs that weren't there. If I believed as you do, I couldn't know anything. I'd have to be very Descartean.

What sort of reason could cause you to think he did. And remember, Jar believes that it is impossible to draw any conclusions about god or his actions scientifically. Would you have to have an angel whisper it in your ear? No, I thik you are. Jar is the one who believes, and yet his beliefs seem not to affect his actions in any way. If I BELIEVED something, I would act on that belief. If I merely allowed that it was possible I'd be much more tentative in my actions, testing and seeing if the possibility had any evidence for it.

Probably. I rather prefer being myself, no offense. But this is what gets me. You say that evidence about god is impossible. You then say that you believe god can do something, but in order to believe it in a specific case, you'd need the aforementioned impossible evidence.It seems to me that either you don't actually believe god can do something, but are simply open to the possibility, or you're ok with the fact that we may be sending even more innocent people to prison and/or death than we already have evidence for.

Why not?You're supposed to weigh the evidence and decide whether the person being tried is more likely to be guilty or innocent. How do you go about this? What calculations do you use?Let's see, the probability of his guilt is one minus the probability of his innocence. What is the probability of his innocence? The probability of his innocence is the probability that the evidence presented was false or inconclusive. What is the probability that the evidence false or inconclusive? I don't know.So all the probabilities down the line become "I don't know." In that case, how can a guilty verdict be the correct choice? I agree on the death penalty, and the sending innocents to prison thing, but you can't weigh the evidence, only your beliefs about it.