Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

No and I have never claimed that it was.If you will walk along with me perhaps I can try to explain my position.

---

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

Well that isn't entirely true now is it? You previously clearly stated that you consider it the rational and logical conclusion to deem the actual existence of any unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable" Message 317 and Message 321And yet when I asked you in that same thread: You replied: You then went on to say: So these Gods that are evidenced by stories - Are they not supernatural? If they are supernatural how on Earth are you now claiming to have never suggested that the supernatural is evidenced? OK. Fine. But at the end of that I would lie to unequivocally know what your position is regarding the following:A) Is the supernatural evidenced in any way?B) Is the existence of that which is entirely un-evidenced "highly improbable"?Without the careful wording, ambiguity and seeming contradictions that have been the hallmark of your contributions on this so far.Where do you want to start?

Well, attempts have been made, like "ghost hunters" who attempt to use science to undercover the supernatural. A very silly proposition to me, if you think about it.Science is only equipped to answer natural phenomenon (physics), not measure or detect things supposedly outside the realm of physics. Who does understand it, and how would you propose to verify said understanding? That's the crux of the situation.1. We cannot detect the supernatural
2. We wouldn't even know where to begin, as you need a starting point in which to test a thesis. If you're referring to prophecies, they are far too vague to reasonablly corroborate the claims. Various religions do the exact same thing. The prophecy of Tyre is one of the more obvious one's where one can see a whole lot of mental gymnastics. As well, the prophecies of the End Times are constantly being modified through adendums and/or amendments to the theories in light of new information. It's not that it doesn't want to. It's a matter of how. Where do you even begin? I agree. We simply don't know either way, or if some of us do know, it is not something that can be proven or replicated with predictable results, which is a requirement of scientific inquiry.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I'd like to continue slowly to make sure that you understand what I have been saying.You agree that the stories exist.Do you remember that I have defined God(s) and god(s) as human constructs?Edited by jar, : too many ys in you

---

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

Obviously the stories exist. OK. Then we have evidence that people believe in the supernatural.
Nobody is going to disagree with that.

Okay.Next step, often the belief or disbelief in given a given God(s) or god(s) is based on the content of those stories.Still with me?

---

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

Often. Yes.But probably more "often" the belief in the validity of those stories is essentially due to what one has been raised to believe as true.Whether this matters to your point or not I don't know. But it is worth highlighting. Yep.

If he happens to consider the supernatural to be a cultural construct, then that would not be an issue, either.I am not saying that is jar's view - I don't read minds. But it is a possibility to consider when reading his posts.

Then it might help if he said that mightn't it? Well let's see where he goes with his step by step analysis. By the end of that we should have a clear and unequivocal idea of what jar's position is regarding what he means by these terms and what his position is on the following:A) Is the supernatural evidenced in any way?B) Is the existence of that which is entirely un-evidenced "highly improbable"?

If you simply want to jump to the end point I would answer those two questions as no and impossible to say.But I doubt that will satisfy you.Something that is un-evidenced has no evidence either supporting or refuting that particular position.But that relates to the existence of the particular thing.Beliefs are entirely separate. So the beliefs of an individual are based on the stories, and what they are taught within the mythos of the story and culture.Still with me?

---

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

OK. In the previous thread you agreed that the actual existence of any un-evidenced entity was "highly improbable". You seem to have reneged on that. If it is entirely unevidenced then it can have originated only by virtue of someone's imagination. How can it be otherwise?Whilst the unevidenced imaginings of ones mind might possibly exist by some miracle of coincidence this would seem unlikely at best. No? Indeed. Well they are quite evidently related by the fact that the beliefs in question pertain to the existence of the particular thing in question. Unless they decide to question those stories and adopt a more evidence based approach to knowledge. Which of course many do. You tell me?

If I remember correctly, in that instance we were talking about a specific example and comparing different concepts. Yawn.If it is entirely un-evidenced it might still exist. As you state it might exist. They are related to the beliefs.Straggler, beliefs can be wrong, but the people holding those beliefs still base those beliefs on reasonable, rational, logical evidence; the content of the stories and the mythos of the culture.You may choose to do otherwise and TTBOMK, no one has prohibited that; but your beliefs are unrelated to their beliefs.When you can present evidence that those holding a set of beliefs consider sufficient to overturn their belief, then hopefully they will change their belief.Still with me?

---

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

quote:

---

That's because secular science has never made any attempt whatsoever to test supernatural phenomena.

---

Simply a lie.
Randi has made a career out of it.

quote:

---

You, along with most secularists do not understand the basics of the supernatural phenomena which exists. You people chide me for not getting myself programmed into what you are convinced to be truth. By the same token, you appear to have a fobia about anything pertaining to the possibility of the supernatural.

---

Again completely wrong. Any evidence of supernatural activity would be fantastic. It would open up whole new avenues of science. Scientists have been seriously studying parapsychology. miracles, psychic phenomena and various other 'supernatural' for centuries. The thing is - no evidence ever holds up.

quote:

---

Predictions of supernatural phenomena predicted thousands of years ago have been tested by fulfillement.

---

If you mean the bible then this is clearly nonsense. There are no predictions in the bible about Jesus that have any validity, since Jesus, if he actually existed, clearly new about the Tankah and probably knew most of it off by heart. Even then most of the 'predictions' are complete bunk. They couldn't even get his name straight, let alone where he would be born. So they invented some fable about a Roman census to try and fit with the prediction in the Tankah. Obvious invention (there was no such census and the idea that any Roman census involved men travelling to their place of birth was sheer fantasy).

quote:

---

By the same token I can argue that secular science wants an explanation of supernatural phenomenon, without being prepared to test and research evidence of supernatural phenomenon

---

No you can't because it is simply a lie.
The thing that you seem to be also ignorant of is that I know the bible - probably as well or better than you do. I can swap verses all day if you like - I was taught theology by monks for years.

You want a scientist to study bible prophecy? OK. Go ahead. Give me any 2 you like and I'll deal with them right here.In the meantime you might like to read the results of a detailed scientific study into prayer - Commissioned by the Templeton foundation who are sympathetic to religion. I'm sure you can google it fairly easily, but as a spoiler - no effect at all.
If you want scientific studies of the paranormal or supernatural then let me know what specific type of supernatural phenomenon and I'll bet I can find published work on it.How generous is that!?

First off, it would be nice if you understood and applied the difference between "You are lying" and "You are mistaken."Perhaps, to be more accurate, I should not have said never, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your list I see everything but Biblical stuff. I've long derided National Geographic's Robert Ballard and others because they appear to have no interest in falsifying or verifying the very significant evidence of the Exodus crossing site at Nuweiba Beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. There's a lot of debate on that in EvC's archives. Perhaps you would like to search in the archives or click my profile as it's in my profile history.To a person, the science buffs here at EvC are not studied on the remarkable Biblica prophecies, though, like you, they make weak attempts to refute what I cite.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're revealing your ignorance relative to the messianic prophecies. The Jesus stuff is not the most imperially significant of the fulfilled prophecies relative to fulfilled predictions in the Biblical record. The dispersement and end time restoration of Israel, the messianic nation chosen by Jehovah is more imperical, for example so far as the here and now fulfillments.The end time predictions relative to what is now the Islamic block of nations and their role as enemies of the restored nation of Israel is another. Those are just a few. I've been studiously into them and daily reading the Bible for over 60 years, since a teenager. I'm neither lying or mistaken. LOL on the theology that the monks teach. How much of the prophets did they apprise you on? If they knew and believed the Bible themselves, they would know that the Holy Father is in Heaven and not a sinful earth creature. Obviously they failed to apprise you on the messianic prophecies, etc.The Bible is not a simple book. One never masters it totally. I'm still studiously at it as an Olympian works out for the high prize. I have not arrived, so to speak. I've learned some things Biblically related from secularist members like you over the years here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.