Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 15 of 549 (572552)
08-06-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
08-06-2010 1:30 PM


Re: The success of the supernatural hypothesis
But obviously, any hypothesis which maintains unverifiablility and unfalsifiability at its core is a bunch of wank as far as actually providing any explanation in which we can have real confidence in. Though we certainly have the capacity to have a feeling of confidence about them.
Humans have an almost endless capacity for self delusion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2010 1:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 549 (572840)
08-07-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
08-07-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Defining terms
There is a lot more sensible evidence for the a higher level of intelligence than that of humans than for the multiple uiverse claim.
1) Why would you assume that this "higher level of intelligence," if it even exists, is supernatural?
2) Why would you assume that this "higher level of intelligence," if it even exists, has anything to do with any deities dreamed up by earthly shamans?
Please provide evidence, not belief, in your answer.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 08-07-2010 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 549 (583058)
09-24-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Jon
09-24-2010 1:18 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? Yup.
There is no such thing as a 'super natural hypothesis'. An hypothesis by definition must be testable. By placing our hypothesis out of the realm of the natural, it is impossible to, through the natural empirical means to which the scientific method is subservient, verify or falsifythat, to test.
Anyone who believes supernatural notions scientifically testable is either misguided or a liar or quack. Others realize it is outside the realm of science, and thus any judgement on it by science as being a failure is clearly inappropriate.
So, by what standard are you judging it as a failure? And, is it appropriate to apply this standard to the notion of the supernatural?
There have been many tests of the supernatural hypothesis.
One simple example: determining that thunder and lightning were not caused by Thor.
Science tested that issue, and determined that there was a natural cause. Those who believed in a supernatural cause were shown that there was no evidence supporting their belief.
Multiply this by hundreds or thousands of tests. (This would have been enough evidence for any field of science, but those who believe in the supernatural are not susceptible to such evidence.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 1:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 2:01 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 304 of 549 (583079)
09-24-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Straggler
09-24-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? Yup.
Well precisely. So has not the concept of supernatural Thor been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?
The supernatural hypothesis in regard to Thor and lightning has been disproved.
Similarly, other tests in regard to supernatural claims have also been disproved.
In science, the overwhelming evidence is against supernatural explanations. Not one test has come down on the side of supernatural; all have come down on the side of natural causes.
It would seem that those pushing the supernatural hypothesis should come up with evidence if they want their hypothesis reconsidered.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2010 2:31 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 333 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 1:01 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 326 of 549 (583293)
09-26-2010 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Jon
09-26-2010 12:12 AM


Re: Something Else to Consider
Is there anyone out there yet who still thinks we need to admit supernatural claims to review by the scientific method, thus confessing their statuses as full-blown hypotheses, finding them wanting, and considering them failed? I believe to do so seriously undermines the credibility of the scientific method. I s'pose others think elsewise on the matter, but then I'd like to see their proof. Why are you pretending supernatural crap is scientific?
Most claims can be evaluated against empirical evidence.
In the case of a some claims involving the supernatural, there is no empirical evidence against which to evaluate those claims. An invisible, undetectable spirit in the sky is one such claim.
But in the case of many claims involving the supernatural, for example a young earth, a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago, lightning caused by a deity, and disease caused by evil spirits, science can examine those claims and come up with alternate explanations for the phenomena.
Are you suggesting that claims of this nature should not be evaluated by science? If science avoided any question or area or claim made by one religion or another, it would be out of business.
How about this: science examines the natural world, and if some of it's findings contradict the beliefs of one religion or another, that's just too bad?
What else would you have science do? Just quit?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 12:12 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 12:37 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 328 of 549 (583295)
09-26-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Jon
09-26-2010 12:37 AM


Nice subtitle
But in the case of many claims involving the supernatural, for example a young earth, a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago, lightning caused by a deity, and disease caused by evil spirits,
These aren't supernatural claims.
Sure they are.
But if you believe otherwise, please back up your assertion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 12:37 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 1:16 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 337 of 549 (583353)
09-26-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Jon
09-26-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Claims on the Natural World are NOT Supernatural
Why does our classification system change simply based on the input value? These are all simply statements on the natural world, and yet you seem to think claim (d) is supernatural because...?
Because there is absolutely no way to arrive at that 6,000 year age estimate for the earth from natural phenomena.
The only way to arrive at that age is from religious belief (i.e., belief in the supernatural).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 1:20 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 1:47 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 549 (583356)
09-26-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Jon
09-26-2010 1:47 PM


Re: Claims on the Natural World are NOT Supernatural
Because there is absolutely no way to arrive at that 6,000 year age estimate for the earth from natural phenomena.
So it is because the claim has been scientifically 'disproven'?
I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
The claim has been made on the basis of religion, stemming from a belief in the supernatural. There is no other way to arrive at that claim because...
The age of the earth has been established by multiple measurements and observations at far older than 6,000 years.
That evidence disproves the claim of supernaturalists based on religious belief for an age of about 6,000 years.
That is very simple.
If the supernaturalists could make claims, stemming from scripture, dogma, revelation, etc., for a wide range of natural phenomena, and if those claims could be verified by evidence and observations, then that would be evidence for the supernatural. However, the opposite has happened, time after time.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 1:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 2:50 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 341 of 549 (583364)
09-26-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Jon
09-26-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Claims on the Natural World are NOT Supernatural
What makes you think these things stem from the supernatural? How do you decide when a claim has been made on the basis of supernatural notions? What are your criteria for determining the supernatural?
Let me put it into baby talk. The claims for a young earth and global flood are made by biblical literalists. Nobody else makes such claims. Biblical literalists make the claims because they read about them in the bible, which they believe is inerrant. The bible is inerrant, they believe, because it was written directly by a supernatural deity. Therefore, those claims, based on the supernatural, must be accurate.
How are you defining supernatural?
No such thing.
And I'll not be replying to these same useless questions again.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 2:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Jon, posted 09-26-2010 3:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 391 of 549 (584020)
09-29-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Jon
09-29-2010 8:16 PM


Claims
Remember, just because a claim uses three-letter words like 'god' or 'creator' does not mean it is supernatural; so long as it makes claims about the natural world, it is natural. If the statement makes no claims about the natural world, it is supernatural.
And you should remember that claims that deal with deities and the natural world are subject to examination.
And if those claims are disproved by the evidence, it does not do much good to the reputations of associated deities.
Look at the claims about a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago and the young earth. Those claims bit the dust long ago, and the credibility of those still pushing those claims is nil.
This does not support the existence of anything supernatural; it is rather the opposite.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Jon, posted 09-30-2010 12:19 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 393 of 549 (584061)
09-30-2010 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Jon
09-30-2010 12:19 AM


Claims again
Let me put this into simple terms.
Folks believe in the supernatural, information concerning which is relayed to them through scripture, revelation, dogma, catechism and the like.
Some of that information is in the form of claims that can be tested. The aforementioned young earth and global flood about 4,350 years ago are two such claims.
The accuracy of such claims, when tested against real-world evidence, is abysmal.
Does this not reflect badly on claims for and belief in the supernatural?
In simple terms, what good is a deity who is wrong so often on claims that can be tested? And if those claims are wrong, what of the claims that cannot yet be tested?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Jon, posted 09-30-2010 12:19 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Jon, posted 09-30-2010 12:29 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 401 by frako, posted 09-30-2010 1:03 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 447 of 549 (585116)
10-05-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Jon
10-05-2010 8:30 PM


What is supernatural?
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'?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Jon, posted 10-05-2010 8:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Jon, posted 10-06-2010 3:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 471 of 549 (585644)
10-09-2010 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Jon
10-08-2010 11:26 PM


Re: Supernatural hypothesis can and do get tested
Forgive me if you've already posted this somewhere, but would you mind laying out your personal definition (how you use the term) for 'supernatural'? From asking folk throughout this thread, it's become clear to me that there are rather different notions of what constitutes 'supernatural', and I think getting your understanding of the term would be a good place to start a discussion between you and me.
Shouldn't the folks that believe in Thor and his lightning bolts and those other things attributed to the supernatural be the ones defining that term?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Jon, posted 10-08-2010 11:26 PM Jon has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 486 of 549 (586207)
10-11-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Jon
10-11-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Is it possible
So, how does your 'experiment' test the 'supernatural'? How does it allow us to draw any conclusions whatsoever on the 'supernatural'?
I explained this to you hundreds of posts ago.
Folks make all sorts of claims involving the supernatural, from Thor and his thunder to young earth, global flood, and healing power of prayer. Those folks believe that these are examples of the supernatural.
Science can examine these claims and see if they stand up against empirical evidence.
So far, all of those claims that could be tested have shown that the supernatural explanation has failed.
Those folks who believe in such things refuse to accept the results. This thread is full of such disbelief.
Bottom line: for any but the true believers the supernatural hypothesis has not just failed, but EPIC FAILED.
No other hypothesis with such a failure rate is taken seriously by science, why should this one be considered anything other than a failure as well?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Jon, posted 10-11-2010 9:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Jon, posted 10-11-2010 11:14 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 490 of 549 (586215)
10-11-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Jon
10-11-2010 11:14 PM


Re: Is it possible
If I am eating an apple, but tell you it is an orange, is it an orange or an apple that I am eating?
Perhaps instead of quibbling you could address my point.
So far the supernatural hypothesis is EPIC FAIL.
Why should it be given any consideration after such a dismal record of failure?
Edited by Coyote, : Formatting

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Jon, posted 10-11-2010 11:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 12:41 AM Coyote 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