Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

I've been traveling a lot for work lately and just generally too busy to reply. When I had enough time to visit, I'd just spend it all catching up on the reading, and you all are just nuts with this shit so I couldn't even keep up. Your mom's got mass density!

It's not me it's the brit I tell 'ya! Don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.- Oni

Ok. Wow sarcasitc eh? Woooo wee you sure told me off!!
I dont even know you and your talking about dicks and balls.
Why?Pointless conversations can imo, be entertaining.You asked where does the natural world end and the supernatural begin.
The natural world is all that exist within the universe. Ok thats where the natural world begins. And given that, anything else would be considered supernatural.How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Denotes the old argument of speculating about things that can not be confirmed or proven. It is pointless to do so because everyone has they're own definitions and opinions of what is supernatural.
That does not mean all these conversations are pointless, and I think you know I did not mean that. I think you are just being a ass. Which is ok too. Dont bother responding.

Its because he wants you to have sex with him.

Your entire argument makes it impossible to confidently rule out supernatural interference at any point in time. Past, present or future. Supernatural possibility — Thirty seconds after you (or anyone else) responds to this message gravity will be supernaturally suspended.By the terms of your argument confidence can only ever be derived from comparative analysis of naturalistic theories. By the terms of your argument we are simply unable to comment on supernatural possibilities such as the one above. By the terms of your argument we must thus remain entirely agnostic about ALL supernatural possibilities. Including those pertaining to future interference. Please note that the above supernatural possibility is, at the time of writing (and of you or anyone else replying), just as unevidenced and unfalsified as any other supernatural claim.So are you confident that gravity will NOT be suspended thirty seconds after you reply to this message? If so on what basis is this confidence derived?You cannot answer this question. By the terms of your argument we cannot confidently predict anything that relies on the consistency of natural law. This should cause you to seriously reconsider your position. Or to live in a permanent state of perplexity that the world doesn't just do random things at the behest of unfalsifiably interfering supernatural agents. By the terms of your own argument it has everything to do with confidence. Or more precisely lack of it.Everytime we expect the world to function as per natural laws we implicitly rule out a whole host of supernatural possibilities. Possibilities that your arguments insist we must be agnostic about.Go figure.

You are not dead so evidently the new universe allows you to exist whatever it's laws or lack of them may be. It is similar enough to allow your current existence but not similar enough for pens to do what we expect of them when dropped. The litmus test will be my dropped pen.The fact that natural laws as we know them don't apply universally and consistently is radical enough. Stop being evasive. Answer the question as put.Predict what the pen will do and don't worry about your own existence for now as it is self evidently possible from the very fact that you are considering the question.

Was the spelling of those you quote really so atrocious?And do you really think this provides a reasoned argument that rebuts the fact that the supernatural, as you are defining it to be (i.e. "unknowable"), is imperceptible and thus necessarily a humanly imagined phenomenon?If something is imperceptible how can the actuality of any conception of it be anything other than mere chance?And what are the odds of us accurately imagining some aspect of imperceptible reality?"Unlikely" at best I would say.Which part of this (silly quotes aside) do you actually disagree with?

Wrong forum for that I'd say. If that chap wants to plaster his smug puss lighting a fag as an enticement he's barking up the wrong tree."It’s been nearly a year since I last buggered a boy, and in my defense at the moment of entry I thought him a girl."
Archibald Cunningham "Rob Roy"

It seems to me that it is your post (i.e. Message 366) that is evasive.

So now you have retreated your dancing angels from being the cause of gravitational effects to being the cause of space-time curvature which is itself the cause of gravitational effects.Is that correct?Because that is not where you started.Do you consider the somethingsupernaturalofthegapsdidit argument to be a valid argument? Thirty seconds after you reply to this message all gravitational effects will be supernaturally suspended.If you are confident that this unfalsified and unevidenced possibility is unlikely to be correct please state for the record your basis for making this conclusion.This is NOT a rhetorical question. Girlfriends being crabby in any fucking circumstance is hardly an unevidenced possibility now is it?On what similarly factual basis do you you consider dancing angels or indeed the existence of any other supernatural entity to be even possible?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Evasive of what?Ask me any question and I will give you a full answer. All I ask from you is the same courtesy.Thirty seconds after you reply to this message all gravitational effects will be supernaturally suspended.If you are confident that this unfalsified and unevidenced supernatural possibility is unlikely to be correct please state for the record your basis for making this conclusion.This is NOT a rhetorical question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why not? Then be entertained, what do you want from me? I asked Jon to clarify his position because I wasn't following it, you chiimed in with something about a pinhead. I figured you were fucking around, so I fucked around back. What's with the sensitivity? Most of you're post, especially in this thread, are sarcastic comments with not much substance, why get on me for doing the same shit?Now, if you actually want to debate it, cool. Can you give an example of what "anything else" is? Because what you're doing is putting an arbitrary line on existence and the universe and making the claim as though this were a fact.The observable universe is all we know of, beyond the observable universe is not only unknown, but more than likely unknowable. So how can you say there is a boundary to something that you can't even see, don't know anything about, and probably will never know anything about? Oh most definitely, a huge ass. But it's par for the course it seems when debating you. Which is ok too. Yeah right...- Oni

Indeed. I couldn't agree more.But the terminological problem remains. And it is not one of my choosing.Unless disproven the existence of god remains a "possibility" (in the unfalsified sense) does it not?The fact that the term "possibility" refers both to that which is positively evidenced as being something worthy of being considered possible Vs something that has no basis for belief at all other than it's status of being unfalsified is the problem here.Agnostics and theists will innately conflate the two. Atheists will see the difference. I honestly believe that RAZD (for example) does not see any evidential difference between the possible existence of alien life and the possible existence of gods. Or the discovery of the coalacanth against all expectation and scepticism towards the existence of gods. You, I, Oni etc. can see the madness of this. RAZD just thinks we are being subjectively biased. I believe his genuineness despite any other differences. But he is wrong because he is conflating two very different versions of "possible"The "possibility" issue is a a terminological problem that infests the whole of EvC debate.How do we solve it?I don't know.

Shakespeare silly? And you a Londoner I thought would dig it.. I'm sure not. Just my atrocious spelling. If something is unknowable, does that mean it is imperceptible? Some experiments have shown the brain's hardware (PET SCANS) predicting the subjects choices 8 seconds before the person chooses. To me this suggest that although reality manifest in a deterministic fashion, our perception and freewill are possibly illusion. We can not know how far down the rabbit hole the wave function dominoes before a choice is percieved. I am skeptical myself. But given enough time a monkey and a type...
oh not another silly quote. I do not know. Science is trying to answer that question doing experiments deep in the Earth attempting to find dark energy. Agreed. All of it sound rational to me.

The point wasn't to provide you with an explanation of the effect. It was to point out that natural explantions don't show that non-natural ones aren't there somewhere. The theory that all ravens are black is not a claim that there is not a white one out there somewhere. I don't have any evidence that it won't happen, but that doesn't mean that I cannot be confident that it won't. My point is that my confidence doesn't follow from the inductive logic. No matter how many black ravens I observe, I'm still not showing that there isn't a white one out there somewhere. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have confidence that the black raven theory will continue to work. Show me the data. Without it, I can only rely on it being most probability something you've imagined Sure, assume I "saw a ghost". I've got as much facts there as showing that "bitches be trippin'".Apparently I shouldn't rely on either... Its wierd to me that I can.