Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Of course not.. anymore than the game of basketball. (Religion is a game of rules relating to obtaining salvation)
I think you're conflating two ideas, ie, Belief and experience are two separate concepts.
Religion is testimony based, so by definition it is discounted by science.
That's where the problem lies.You made a statement(maybe on another thread) that you would have to reconsider your stance on atheism if you experienced the 2nd coming.
To be self consistent you would commit yourself to be evaluated for schizophrenia.So you accept testimony if it is your own.
Or maybe if it is your own and is shared by the rest of humanity.
What if one person were left out?
What if it were you in the loo?
What if it happens to you and a small group?
To yourself alone?
To a lifelong personal friend?
At some point you discount testimony.In all the above the experience is the same. But in one (or more) you accept the experience and in the rest you reject it.
Reasonable and rational enough, but it really has no finality of proof that you are looking for.

I thought you said that the existence of things which are neither derived from nor subject to laws of nature was NOT a possibility? How is that different from calling them impossible? Consider the following example:The Christian conception of Christ is as a genuinely divine and miraculous being. Born of a virgin not by some quirk of biology not yet discovered but simply by the will of biblical Yahweh. This Christ being is neither derived from nor subject to any laws of nature and can perform acts which are inherently inexplicable in any material terms (i.e. miracles).Do you accept that the actual existence of this Christ entity as described above is a possibility?In the bewilderingly unlikely event that this entity does actually exist would it not be both accurate and meaningful to describe it as supernatural? I am certainly not assuming such things do exist (I don’t personally think that they do). But unless I know for certain that they are impossible they remain a possibility. Right? The term supernatural is an adjective that is no more conceptually meaningless than words like useful or impossible. The fact such terms can be applied both erroneously and subjectively does not detract from the fact that they have conceptual meaning in and of themselves.I have told you what I mean by the term and you can look it up in any standard English dictionary and find it defined with meaning that is consistent with the one I have given in this thread. If the term has common conceptual meaning how can it be meaningless? I am more interested in what you think. But feel free to do whatever you think best achieves that end.

quote:

---

I am certainly not assuming such things do exist (I don’t personally think that they do). But unless I know for certain that they are impossible they remain a possibility. Right?

---

Only in our imagination. We can imagine beyond our reality, but that doesn't mean that everything we imagine is possible or probable. "Anything is possible" is a nice catch phrase for encouragement.

quote:

---

Do you accept that the actual existence of this Christ entity as described above is a possibility?

---

Not outside of the human imagination and the medium used to communicate those thoughts.

quote:

---

The term supernatural is an adjective that is no more conceptually meaningless than words like useful or impossible. The fact such terms can be applied both erroneously and subjectively does not detract from the fact that they have conceptual meaning in and of themselves.

---

The concept exists in the human mind. It doesn't describe something that was seen in the real world. It describes something that was seen in the human imagination.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

I believe I said, to think that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived form natural law was illogical. The premise itself is contradictory by the very definition of what it means to exist. In reality? No. Reality has parameters that must be met. To exist in reality means, to be derived from and subject to natural law.Outside of reality? That is nonsensical...However, you can verbally express yourself using common terms like supernatural, miracle, god, etc., to formulate all the concepts you want. In the world of fiction anything is possible. If it goes against logic, and has no supporting evidence, then how does it remain possible? What is the basis for the very concept? How did we arrive at such an idea that something can exist in reality and not be subject to or derived from natural law? How does someone postulate an outside of reality? Not in it's verbal usage but as applied to reality. In that sense it is meaningless. I only ask because maybe I'm not doing a good job at getting the point across and someone like Dennett or Sam Harris explaining it will do a much better job than me.They suggest, as I am doing here, that words like supernatural and god are lingustic place fillers until science catches up. As is witnessed with past phenomena like eclipses and volcanic eruptions.To say that it is possible for these phenomena to be inherently unknowable by natural means, and are not derived from or subject to natural law, is to equally say that it is impossible for science to ever know, understand, or be able to explain it. Something I'm sure you would not agree with.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Oh.I thought that since you were saying "logical" this and "logical" that, you might have actually done some logic.Well, carry on.

How can you know this with such absolute certainty? I entirely agree with the sentiment of this and certainly believe it to be true. What I dispute is your degree of certainty.

So you have applied an absolute and incontrovertible definition to "reality" and in doing so pronounced the actual existence of the Christian conception of Christ to be an impossibility. After having previously stated that "I have declaired nothing impossible".Can you see why this might seem contradictory? So now you have applied an absolute definition of what it means "to exist" as well. And on this basis concluded that all human conceptions of the supernatural are illogical and meaningless. Given that the nature of what it means "to exist" (ontology) is a whole branch of philosophy that has far from conclusive answers do you think you can justify such incontrvertible certainty in the definition you have applied?What if your definitions of "exist" and "reality" are inadequate? Do you accept that this is a possibility? I absolutely believe that this is almost certainly the case. What I dispute is the absolute certainty with which you confidently declare that all things must adhere to your rather simplistic definitions and that all things must therefore be materially explicable. Because you have defined them to be so. Indeed. That is essentially what supernatural means. To assume that all things are inherently materially explicable is an immensely well founded assumption that I would fight tooth and claw to promote both as scientifically necessary and almost certainly true. But no matter how well founded it may be it remains an assumption. NOT a certainty.Applying absolute and incontrovertible definitions to things as contentious and complex as "reality" and "existence" and then pronouncing that anything which defies your definitions is illogical, meaningless and nothing is not justifiable.I remain in disagreement.

If Yahweh (whatever that is) could deliberately make things happen by "will", surely there must be some mechanism or process between the act of "will" and the desired consequence.E.G. If Yahweh wills the birth of Jesus from a virgin, there must then be some mechanism or process that occurs to ensure the desired conception and birth of Jesus - and not some undesired consquence such as a tree falling over!Even if such process is unknown to us, if it affects objects within the natural world, why is it not a natural process?Or to put it another way, how do you differentiate between "some quirk of biology not yet discovered", "the will of Yahweh", or "a miracle"?

quote:

---

How can you know this with such absolute certainty?

---

Because the human imagination can imagine impossible things. The imagination is amazing and still mysterious.From Message 197: Jesus was subject to the laws of nature. He grew in the womb for the normal period of time, he was fed and trained as any other child. He grew as any other child. He consumed food and drink, he bled when injured, and he died.Have you ever noticed that we tend to make sure our supposedly supernatural beings can't "take us out" or "take over"? Achilles heal so to speak. There is always something to limit their interaction or take over.Given the supposed character of Jesus and his goal to get people to stop sinning, there's nothing stopping him from returning in physical form and continuing to teach in each new era if he is truly not bound by the laws of nature.In reality he's bound by the imagination of man.Exaggeration is a part of story telling. Natural results can be exaggerated into miracles. The stories of the miracles were written over 40 years later. Miracles can be added to aid in the point of the story.When someone writes of a miracle how can anyone explain them in material terms? It's a writing, there isn't any "material" to investigate.Supposedly Buddha's ability to walk on water was due to intense training in meditation. Buddhism and MiraclesSo walking on water isn't considered impossible for humans by Buddhists. Walking on Water - Christ and BuddhaBuddha is not considered a supernatural being by his followers.

quote:

---

What I dispute is your degree of certainty.

---

I've witnessed man's imagination at work.Two people, at the same time, experience an encounter with a store clerk. One depicts the encounter as uneventful and the other depicts a rude and obstructive clerk. I've viewed this type of situation many times. Some people like to embellish.Our minds can imagine things that are "contrary to the known laws of nature". But IMO, even those imaginings are inspired by what we have seen and what mankind wishes to do.We see birds flying.
Water bugs walking on water.
Fish swimming underwater.
Hummingbirds and dragonflies hover.We are inspired by the real world around us.
Some are never satisfied with what is and imagine more.As long as these beings are bound by human imagination, it isn't possible for them to exist in reality. If they existed in reality, imagination isn't necessary.

However wrongheaded it may be Yahweh is a pretty well defined concept. Let's not our let our disbelief in this concept get conflated with accusations of ambiguity. If there is and it is a mechanism or process that can be investigated and understood in natural terms (i.e. scientifically) then it would't be supernatural.But that is not what Christians believe. And we cannot just redefine their concepts to fit our scientific version of reality just because it is convenient to do so.They may be wrong. I certainly think they are. But being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing. If he is genuinely supernatural and unbounded by natural laws as Christians believe then why must this be so?Being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing. Because it is defined to be inherently materially inexplicable and not bounded by natural laws. That is what supernatural means.I don't believe that such beings or events actually exist any more than you do. But that doesn't make the term "meaningless" as is the assertion being made here. Well if you discovered the "quirk of biology" scientifically that would conclusively resolve the issue in favour of a naturalistic conclusion. But short of that - You cannot in practise differentiate. I will agree wholeheartedly that science must necessarily assume (and an exceptionally well founded assumption it is too) that everything is materially explicable. Otherwise we might as well just not bother scientifically investigating anything that seems to defy explanation at first glance. And that will get us absolutely nowhere.But none of this makes the term supernatural "meaningles" or "nothing" as is the assertion being made here. The term supernatural has common conceptual meaning and it remains a philosophical possibility (no matter how remote) that things which are inherently inexplicable in material terms might exist.Now I will wholeheratedly agree that any belief that that something supernatural exists is almost certainly wrongheaded nonsense. I will wholeheratedly agree that the entire notion of the supernatural is all but certainly a product of the human imagination. But being almost certainly wrong and being "meaningless" or "nothing" are not the same thing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can any amount of evidence favouring a concept as the product of human imagination ever demonstrate that something is impossible? OK. No argument there. But how does that in itself prove that any particular thing is solely the product of human imagination? Well I think we can safely say that we all have. But how does that in itself prove that any particular claim is solely the product of human imagination? I wholeheartedly agree that this is almost certainly the case.What I dispute is your absolute knowledge that this is definitely and incontrovertibly the case with regard to this or any other particular instance.How can you have such absolute knowledge that this is impossible?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Can any amount of evidence favouring a concept as the product of human imagination ever demonstrate that something is impossible?

---

Concepts start in the mind. The evidence would need to show that the concept is possible outside the mind. Is there anything in the real world today that goes against the known laws of nature?What real action today has caused science to search for the type of being you described in Message 197?

It's not my definition, it is the only definiton we have. And, it is not absoute, it is held tentatively until evidence is shown otherwise. No, I have shown how the Christian concept of Christ is flawed as it violates the laws of nature and reality. Yes, yes I do. And it would be awesome if it was, that would lead to a whole new side of science that would be amazing to discover. And that's why it is a logical fallacy to assume this. Nothing is certain, that I can agree with. But imagining other alternatives, when not one single piece of evidence exists for it, and it is logically fallacious, doesn't make the imagined alternative a possibility.What we can say for certain is that natural explanations have been given for many, if not all, known phenomena. Christ was not a phenomenon, he is a character in a story. So was Muhammed, Zeus, and the rest of the gods, and what they were said to have willed. So no explanation, ntaural or otherwise, is needed for these guys. What I am calling meaningless and "nothing" is the past applications of the word supernatural, as the cause of an eclipse or an eruption. In those cases, it has ended up refering to nothing at all, and was meaningless because a natural cause eventually explained each of these.To say that Christ now fits this ambiguous definition of supernatural, and that it has meaning in that sense, is to ignore the history of that word and to fall into the gaps argument.- Oni

Absolutely nothing aside from human belief (which is no sort of evidence for anything)But that doesn't make it an impossibility. Which is what you have claimed. Even Dawkins and the like only go so far as to say such things are "deeply improbable". And that is where I stand too. For good philosophical reasons declarations of absolute certainty are unjustified.The point being - That if the term "supernatural" has common conceptual meaning and refers to something that (no matter how improbable) might exist it cannot be accurately described as "meaningless" or "nothing".It can be accurately described as almost certainly wrong. But not "nothing".

If we define existence and reality to be that which is empirically detectable and subject to natural laws then it becomes trivial (to the point of tautological) to conclude that all religious conceptions of the supernatural are non-existent and unreal.If things were this easy there would be nothing to debate. We could simply tell theists (and deists) No. The object of your beliefs as conceived by you or your religion cannot actually exist. Thus you are refuted. Job done. Yes. Which means that we cannot just define reality and existence in this way. What we can do, based on the entirety of human history, is say that there are exceptionally strong grounds for thinking existence and reality are limited in the ways you have stated. We can also legitimately conclude on the evidence available that assertions regarding the actual existence of the supernatural are borne of human imagination, ignorance and the desire for "something more".But these are evidence based conclusions. Not definitions. Thus they remain tentative rather than definitive. And if our notions of reality and existence are not absolute and definitive the existence of the supernatural (no matter how improbable) remains a possibility.In which case "supernatural" has both common conceptual meaning and refers to things which might (no matter how improbable) exist.Thus the term "supernatural" is not "meaningless" or "nothing".Wrong? Almost certainly. But that isn't "nothing". "Wrong" is a position that has to be argued and demonstrated. To declare a concept as "nothing" is a position simply derived from definitions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.But being wrong as a result of evidence and argument is not the same as being "nothing" because we have defined reality and existence to make it so. To cite Christ as an example of a concept that can accurately and meaningfully be called "supernatural" should hardly be controversial. And I chose the the concept of Christ exactly because, for all it's faults, it isn't ambiguous.But being wrong as a result of evidence and argument is not the same as being "nothing" or "meaningless" because we have defined reality and existence to make it so.I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.