|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do we have evidence against the supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Do we have any evidence against the supernatural?
Now, I don't mean evidence against any specific claim about an event that may or may not have happened on this earth. I mean, do we have any evidence to counter the claim "there is a nonphysical afterlife." or "After death my soul will live on." ? I don't see how it's even logically possible to provide such evidence. And just to take a pre-emptive strike against those who might want to claim parsimony or Occam's Razor... parsimony is a made-up, ad-hoc principle in creating scientific models. It itself is not a form of evidence, and it does not apply in any way to metaphysical "truth." I would appreciate to know this, because I've seen a fair number of claims about how the supernatural is "unlikely", we have "evidence against it", or that it's just "unnecessary." (Being generous,) It's been unnecessary in creating models for describing the physical world. Certainly it's an unwarranted step to go beyond THAT and claim "truth." I'd like to finally face this issue. If possible. (AbE: I'd also like a place where I can ask people to go if they make these claims within another thread. Rather than pull a discussion OT, I can ask this question and ask them to respond in this thread.) (maybe "Is It Science?") This message has been edited by Ben, Sunday, 2005/10/02 09:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Since one cannot disprove fairies, elves, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, at what point do you accept that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
It is impossible to dealt with this issue unless you get a little more specific than that. If we don't get a little more specific, it is like asking, "Do we have any evidence for the natural...?" and try to answer it without mentioning something specific about the natural world.
With that said, I'm going to answer your question with a couple questions. Do we have any evidence against the immaterial/invisible pink unicorn? (No, the IPU never gets old.) The other question is why should we believe in something that has a total lack of evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
The principle of parismony is a principle for the natural world. As far as anything is purported to exist in the natural world, I don't have a problem with applying the principle of parsimony.
In what way are fairies, elves, or Invisible Pink Unicorns supernatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
It is impossible to dealt with this issue unless you get a little more specific than that. If we don't get a little more specific, it is like asking, "Do we have any evidence for the natural...?" and try to answer it without mentioning something specific about the natural world. Actually, I think it's like asking "Do we have any evidence for ANYTHING in the natural world". When you use "ANYTHING", it means bring your OWN qualifier. Sure. We have evidence for the existence of Lam.
With that said, I'm going to answer your question with a couple questions. Do we have any evidence against the immaterial/invisible pink unicorn? (No, the IPU never gets old.) Please see my previous response. In what way is the IPU supernatural? Invisible doesn't mean not part of the natural world. It just means it has specific properties with respect to electromagnetic radiation. I've never heard somebody talk about an IMMATERIAL pink unicorn. What would that mean?
The other question is why should we believe in something that has a total lack of evidence? That IS the other question. As in, a question that's not part of this thread. If there's no reason to believe in something and no reason to NOT believe in something, ... then there's no REASON involved in the decision. It's a topic for threads that build off the result of this one (if I can establish the result that I think I can).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think the evidence would be of this form:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Wow. The last time I saw someone dodge like that, they ended up spraining their back. Let me throw this right back at you: in what way is the afterlife a supernatural concept? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Wow. The last time I saw someone dodge like that, they ended up spraining their back. Gee, and the last time I saw someone make a half-assed wrong accusation, they were told by AdminNosy to apologize. You proposed 3 creatures that are part of the natural world. Is air not part of the natural world because it's invisible? Elves are not part of the natural world because... they have pointy noses? Fairies not part of the natural world because.. they fly? If we can supposedly interact with them physically, then ... it's part of the natural world. So... how are those things supernatural? They seem natural to me. And I'd really appreciate if you answer the question in the same way that I asked it--honestly.
Let me throw this right back at you: in what way is the afterlife a supernatural concept? In the way that it has absolutely NO effect on any natural thing. In other words, it's not measurable in any way, at least as far as I can see. It seems really that simple--definitional. Maybe one step, a simple syllogism. But I could be wrong. It happens much more often than I'm right, that's for sure. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Ben writes:
You are very close to committing the composition fallacy. Sure, some things are invisible, but that doesn't mean that an immaterial/invisible pink unicorn is natural. Please see my previous response. In what way is the IPU supernatural? Invisible doesn't mean not part of the natural world. It just means it has specific properties with respect to electromagnetic radiation. I've never heard somebody talk about an IMMATERIAL pink unicorn. What would that mean?
Immaterial refers to objects that aren't made of matter as we know it. In other words, if you have an immaterial/invisible pink unicorn in a room, filling up the room with water won't allow you to measure the volume of the IPU. In fact, if you can think of any possible way to confirm the presence of an IPU in a room, you are smarter than all the philosophers and scientists that ever existed.
That IS the other question. As in, a question that's not part of this thread. If there's no reason to believe in something and no reason to NOT believe in something, ... then there's no REASON involved in the decision. It's a topic for threads that build off the result of this one (if I can establish the result that I think I can).
My mistake. Consider it withdrawn.
It is impossible to dealt with this issue unless you get a little more specific than that. If we don't get a little more specific, it is like asking, "Do we have any evidence for the natural...?" and try to answer it without mentioning something specific about the natural world. Actually, I think it's like asking "Do we have any evidence for ANYTHING in the natural world". When you use "ANYTHING", it means bring your OWN qualifier. Sure. We have evidence for the existence of Lam.
With that said, I'm going to answer your question with a couple questions. Do we have any evidence against the immaterial/invisible pink unicorn? (No, the IPU never gets old.) Please see my previous response. In what way is the IPU supernatural? Invisible doesn't mean not part of the natural world. It just means it has specific properties with respect to electromagnetic radiation. I've never heard somebody talk about an IMMATERIAL pink unicorn. What would that mean?
The other question is why should we believe in something that has a total lack of evidence? That IS the other question. As in, a question that's not part of this thread. If there's no reason to believe in something and no reason to NOT believe in something, ... then there's no REASON involved in the decision. It's a topic for threads that build off the result of this one (if I can establish the result that I think I can).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Here's some evidence FOR the supernatural:
(I don't see how that last bullet point fits in at all yet...) Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Lam,
I was trying to separate between two things: invisible pink unicorn(natural) and immaterial pink unicorn (something I've never heard of before). How do you test for an invisible pink unicorn? Try and kick it. How do you test for an immaterial pink unicorn? That's not natural, you can't test for it. It is untestable; you can't have evidence for it or against it (as far as I can tell). ... As for the other part of your post... if that resolution wasn't satsifactory to you for now, let me know. But that's the approach I am trying to take to this--break it up into small pieces, see what can be (or cannot be) established, and then move forward off of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Ben writes:
Something is natural when it exists. So, can I get to kick one at the local zoo?
I was trying to separate between two things: invisible pink unicorn(natural)...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry. I didn't realize you were smiley-impaired. I'll remember that next time I'm tempted to include a joke in a response to one of your posts. Better yet, maybe it's better that I just don't respond to your posts. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Something is natural when it exists. So, can I get to kick one at the local zoo? That was supposed to mean it is "of the natural realm." You can test whether one actually exists in the room by trying to kick it. By being part of the "natural realm", it's testable. Just as whether air exists or not is testable. It's just an invisible object. Devise a test and test for it. My claim has nothing to do with things of the "natural realm", only things of the supernatural realm. Those things which are supposedly "not of this world". For example, an immaterial pink unicorn.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024