Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 482 of 549 (586159)
10-11-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Jon
10-11-2010 2:55 PM


Re: Is it possible
Jon writes:
What about cutting a goat and burning it is supernatural?
In and of itself I think that is called cooking a goat.
The supernatural part comes in when you start invoking cause and effect between the observable world and that which is claimed to be inherently empirically inexplicable.
Saying that cutting and burning a goat will result in a fine harvest of your crops because it pleases the will of some materially inexplicable entity who apparently likes dead goats and rewards those who do such things with good harvests is what makes the claim supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Jon, posted 10-11-2010 2:55 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 496 of 549 (586248)
10-12-2010 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Jon
10-12-2010 2:28 AM


Re: Is it possible
Jon writes:
What makes the claims supernatural?
The inclusion in the claim of a causal agent which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and which is itself claimed to materially inexplicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 2:28 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 503 of 549 (586368)
10-12-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Jon
10-12-2010 2:37 PM


Re: Request for More Definitions
Jon writes:
You didn't?
No I didn't.
If you wanna discuss the problems that supernaturalists face regarding contradictory claims that the supernatural is both imperceptible and yet somehow evidenced I am happy to oblige. But please don't make out this is some sort of weakness in my position because this particular supernatural claim happens to be widespread amongst supernaturalists.
Jon writes:
How do you perceive something that is 'immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable' which 'originated as a human concept' from nowhere 'other than the internal workings of the human mind'?
You cannot. That is kinda my point.
Jon writes:
This is a minor point, of course.
If you think you have any point at all can you specify what exactly your point is and an example of this point in practical terms?
Jon writes:
Would you say any explanations that inherently lack evidence are 'failures' by this definition?
As per imperceptible entities - If ones explanations are derived from no evidence whatsoever then how can they be anything other than derived from human imagination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 2:37 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Jon, posted 10-13-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 508 of 549 (586539)
10-13-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Jon
10-13-2010 12:55 PM


Inexplicables and Imperceptibles
Jon if you have a position beyond being a pedantic arse in this thread I am failing to see it. But I shall continue to correct your misapprehensions and answer your questions regardless.
Coz that's the congenial kinda guy I am.
Jon writes:
What is the definition of 'supernatural'?
You keep asking me what I mean by supernatural and then completely ignoring what I say. Here it is again. A concept is supernatural if it is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and is itself thus deemed to be materially inexplicable.
Now if you want to specifically talk about supernatural concepts which are claimed to be entirely imperceptible as well we can. There are plenty of such concepts around. And (bizzarrely given that you seem intent on arguing with me on this issue) we seem to largely agree that such concepts are necessarily products of the human mind.
But if you had read my previous posts in this thread then you would also know that I have specifically cited examples of supernatural concepts which are not considered to be entirely imperceptible.
Jon writes:
Would you say any explanations that inherently lack evidence are 'failures' by this definition?
I'd say any explanation posited on the basis of no evidence at all (i.e. a baseless proposition that effectively amounts to biased guessing) will almost certainly be wrong. Being almost certainly wrong doesn't exactly qualify as a success does it?
But I am not sure what you mean "by this definition". By what definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Jon, posted 10-13-2010 12:55 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Jon, posted 10-16-2010 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 521 of 549 (587206)
10-17-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Jon
10-16-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Inexplicables and Imperceptibles
You seem determined to conflate the unfalsifiability of certain supernatural entities with the ability of science to refute to all practical intents and purposes the supernatural as the causal agent for an observed phenomenon.
Jon writes:
Is it possible to scientifically test things that are 'neither derived from nor subject to natural law' and are 'thus deemed to be materially inexplicable'?
Scientifically test what?
Scientifically test that they certainly do or do not exist? No.
Scientifically test whether or not there is a natural rather than a supernatural cause for some observed phenomenon? Yes. We can test that. I refer you once again to Thor banging his hammer Vs static electricity as the cause of thunder.
I suggest you read the OP again.
Jon writes:
If so, how can it be done?
It very much depends which of the above two questions you are asking.
Jon writes:
If not, why is it not possible?
It very much depends which of the above two questions you are asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Jon, posted 10-16-2010 12:23 PM Jon has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 523 of 549 (587751)
10-20-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by onifre
10-20-2010 3:32 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni writes:
Perhaps, but the way I see it is, the individual god concepts do define what god is.
Then you are simply wrong.
Consider the term life. What does life mean?
Examples of life include everything from bacteria to oak trees. Via locusts, carrots, humans, cauliflowers, whales, algae, dinosaurs and a whole host of other things up to and including fictional alien and fantasy beings like Godzilla, hobbits, triffids and little green men from Mars. The dividing line between life and non-life is blurry. And the forms of life that might exist out there are vast and quite possibly unimaginable.
By the terms of your argument the word life is meaningless because it is an umbrella term for a range of concepts that meet some rather broad conceptual criteria. It doesn’t mean one specific thing. We cannot point to a particular entity and say that is the definition of life. Just as is the case with the term god.
Do you consider the term life to be meaningless as well?
Oni writes:
These are all concepts, aren't they? One doesn't defines what god is any more than the others do. You can pick any of those as the definition for god.
They are all examples of god concepts, and they can all serve as the definition for god.
No. They are examples. Not definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 3:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 11:54 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 531 of 549 (588100)
10-22-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by onifre
10-20-2010 11:54 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Do you think the definition of the term "god" I supplied you with is invalid? How can the term be meaningless if we have defined and agreed a meaning for it?
Oni writes:
"See that concept I created? That is god."
You are once again conflating two different things. When people seek to define the particular object of their personal theistic beliefs they are not defining the term god in the sense of supplying a universal dictionary style definition.
When you ask the question What do you mean by god why do you think those answering are providing you with a universal definition rather than a statement of what it is they believe in?
Look at our conversations with CS. Ask him what he means by "god" and he will loosely define the object of his beliefs. Then ask him if the ancient Greeks believed in gods and he will answer that question in the universal sense.
You are conflating his answers to these different questions.
Oni writes:
"See that concept I created? That is god."
No. That concept is an example of a god concept. A concept which the person asked actually believes in whilst also accepting that there are numerous other examples of god concepts in which they do not personally believe.
Oni writes:
So it seems clear to me that the concepts define what god is, was and will be. The word doesn't have a meaning or definition independent of the concepts...muchacho.
Then we are back to our comparison with the term "superhero". Can we define that any more thoroughly than we can "god"?
Oni writes:
"See what all that does? That's life."
No. I don't really see "what all that does". What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 11:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 532 of 549 (588154)
10-22-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by onifre
10-20-2010 11:54 PM


Sorry
Oni writes:
Suave muchacho...
Yep. I was being a belligerent dick.
A few beers and some EvC interaction with Jon are my excuse. But I generally try and limit my worst excesses of belligerent dickism to those who act like twats towards me first. You have not done this.
So I apologise for my belligerent dickism.
Now it is Friday and I am off for some more beers - So prepare yourself for more over confident twattishness later on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 11:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 2:31 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 537 of 549 (588202)
10-22-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by onifre
10-22-2010 1:48 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni writes:
You didn't provide me with a definition, you gave me a concept.
No I didn't. I supplied you with a definition. Look in any dictionary. As per previous posts:
Straggler: The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality. Something like the following dictionary definition:
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine.
Look in any dictionary and let me know if you find anything radically different.
Oni writes:
However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning. Just like god.
So you agree that the term "superhero" is no more or less meaningless than the term "god"?
Just how many "meaningless" words do you think we can identify? Wizard? Shamen? Ghost? Telepathy? Poltergeist? Telekenesis? Are all these words all equally "meaningless"?
Despite the fact we know what they mean and can find definitions pertaining to common conceptual usage if we need to.
Oni writes:
However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning.
If a the terms "superhero" and "god" are meaningless you presumably have no problem with describing Peter Parker as a god and Jesus as a superhero?
If the above comparisons don't adhere to common conceptual meaing then I would suggest your assertions are overly simplistic.
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?
Exists in reality.
That is just silly. Rocks exist in reality but nobody sane would describe rocks as a form of life.
What does life do such that we can universally recognise it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 1:48 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 10:03 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 539 of 549 (588405)
10-25-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by onifre
10-22-2010 10:03 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni do you think that any word that refers to any concept which probably doesn't actually exist is meaningless?
Oni writes:
If you were to remove the conceptual, created, human images and descriptions of these things, would these words have meaning?
How can ANY word have meaning if you remove it's common conceptual meaning?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Rocks exist in reality but nobody sane would describe rocks as a form of life.
Well, why? Because even though there isn't a concensus, there is a limit as to what any sane person would call life. And why? Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.
Do you accept that it is possible to have fictional examples of life? Or not?
Oni writes:
Can you say the same for god, ghosts and wizrds?Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.
Are Klingons an example of life? E.T? Bigfoot?
Oni writes:
If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant?
If I took my son to see Jesus of Nazareth on the promise that he was going to see a superhero film he would be very unhappy with the result.
Can you not see the difference between people falsely imbuing things with attributes that make them godly (i.e. believing that things are gods) and those things actually possessing those criteria?
Have you seen the life of Brian? Was Brian the Messiah? Or did people just think he was despite the fact he was no more godly than you or I?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Straggler: The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality.
But that sounds like the concept of god in deism. Add "that you worship" and now it sounds like a lot of the other concepts.
If you don't specify what aspect of reality the entity in question is responsible for it sounds like the god of deism. If you specify the Sun or the weather or fertility or whatever then it sounds like a more specific god of that particular aspect of reality. If you give it a name and a mythology it becomes Apollo or Thor or whatever.
But they all meet that universal definition.
Oni writes:
I guess where I'm having trouble is, how do you distinguish between the proper definition and any other concept?
If the concept in question is a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (whether specific as per Apollo or Thor or ambiguous as per deism) then it is a god by common conceptual meaning you can find in any dictionary.
I really don't get what your problem is with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 10:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 3:28 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 541 of 549 (588427)
10-25-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by onifre
10-25-2010 3:28 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Is there any word that refers to anything that doesn't exist that you accept as being conceptually meaningful?
Or are all words that refer to fictional things "meaningless" as far as you are concerned?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Are Klingons an example of life? E.T? Bigfoot?
No, they are actors, characters and invented creatures.
"Invented creatures"? So invented forms of life rather than invented places (for example - e.g. Atlantis)?
In that sense are they not conceptually distinct?
Oni writes:
IF they existed as they are represented in fictional works, then they too could be examples of life.
Well I would say that conceptually they are all examples of life whether they are real or not. No?
You seem to be saying that conceptual meaning and actual evidenced existence in reality are necessarily synonomous.
Is that your position? Or have I misunderstood?
Oni writes:
And...you didn't answer my question:
Oni writes:
If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant?
So would you?
I would know what you meant in the same way that I would know what you meant if you said you were a sexual god or a superhero of comedy.
But I wouldn't think that defined either term in the context we are talking about here.
Oni writes:
I asked how you distinguish between a concept and the proper definition.
My point was that the concepts provided the definition for the word, you said it didn't. But you haven't shown me how.
The definition is, "A supernatural consciouisness." The concept of god in deism is, "A supernatural consciousness."
So, does deism provide the definition, or was there an existing, universally accepted definition that has been established for all of history and deism just adopted it?
Neither. You have misunderstood what I am saying. I said (to quote) "The term god means a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality".
The deistic god is a conscious supernatural being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (usually either the creation of the universe or as the source of morality depending on your deist). Thor is a conscious supernatural being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (i.e. storms, thunder, lightening etc.), Apollo is a supernatural being that is responsible for some aspect of reality (i.e the Sun) etc. etc. etc. etc.
The difference between the concepts is one of specificity and ambiguity. But they all meet the universal broad definition given in any major dictionary.
No?
Oni writes:
Or does the definition get more and more ambiguous as time goes and changes to represent that?
It tends to get more ambiguous the more intellectually sophisticated the believer/advocate is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 3:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 544 of 549 (588457)
10-25-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by onifre
10-25-2010 6:00 PM


Re: "Meaningless"
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Is there any word that refers to anything that doesn't exist that you accept as being conceptually meaningful?
Any word, invented to fill a gap, once the gap is filled, becomes meaningless. But, so long as questions remain, god as a gap filler remains. That is the only reason it still has meaning.
Where am I going wrong?
You are going wrong because your definition of "meaningless" relies on the following: "Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists."
So can you give me an example of a word that you think has meaning but which refers to something fictional (i.e. which does not actually exist)?
Straggler writes:
Or are all words that refer to fictional things "meaningless" as far as you are concerned?
No, and I haven't stated that. I'm being specific as to why I think certain words are meaningless.
It has nothing to do with fictional words, or referencing things that don't exist. This is only for words that are made up and concepts that are made up to fill a gap in knowledge.
OK. Then you should be able to give a clear example of something that does not exist but for which a meaningful term exists.
Right?
Oni writes:
Yes, they meet the definition. I guess the jist of what I'm asking is, what came first, the concepts or the definition?
Why does it matter? If a term has common conceptual meaing it has meaning and is not "meaningless".
Oni writes:
Take superhero. Concepts were created by people first, I think Superman was the first. He needed a name, so, superhero was given to him. Now, anything that follows the criteria set by Superman (or which ever the first one was) gets called superhero. The concept set the basis for there to be an acceptable definition.
Well even if I accept all of that what does it tell us? That Superman is the definition of "superhero"? No. That Superman is an example of a superhero? Yes. Albeit an example from which the original concept developed and evolved to become the common conceptual definition.
Thus making the term "superhero" meaningful.
Oni writes:
To me, that is the same as god - the (original) concept gave rise to an acceptable definition that is now universal.
Given that all known human cultures have come up with their own god concepts (entirely independently in some cases) that argument holds little water.
If the term "god" has no meaning how do anthropologists recognise theistic cultures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 6:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 11:26 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 547 of 549 (588518)
10-26-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by onifre
10-25-2010 11:26 PM


Final Post (Confused)
Oni writes:
Within the context of the concepts it has meaning.
Well given that we are talking about whether or not certain words have common conceptual meaning I am not sure what else is required?
You seem to be saying that anything that doesn't actually exist (i.e. is fictional) is meaningless. But when I asked if that is what you meant you said not:
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Or are all words that refer to fictional things "meaningless" as far as you are concerned?
No, and I haven't stated that. I'm being specific as to why I think certain words are meaningless.
But this is the problem. I don't think you are have been specific. I honestly have no frikkin idea how to tell definitively which words you think are "meaningless" and which are not. So far we have established that you think the following terms are all "meaningless": god, superhero, ghost, wizard, shaman, telepathy, poltergeist and telekenesis.
What do all of these things have in common other than being fictional? Which of the following words do you consider to be "meaningless": dragon, unicorn, hobbit, extraterrestrial, angel, demon, heaven, hell, Atlantis, dodo, Loch Ness monster, Higgs Boson, Vishnu, Gandalf, love?
I reckon I could hazard a decent guess as to your answers but I really still don’t know what criteria you are applying in order to conclude that any particular term is meaningless.
Oni writes:
Right, and while the world of comic books and fiction exist, the word superhero has meaning. But they don't exist in reality so there isn't anything to define.
This is why I say within the context of religion or mythology, when the concepts are being discussed, it has meaning. But without the concept, gods don't exist in reality so there is nothing to define.
In both cases there is the concept to define. In fact whether something actually exists or not it is still ultimately the concept we are defining isn't it? Whether extraterrestrial life or the Higgs boson are actually found to exist or not the concepts still have meaning don’t they?
Oni writes:
Given AdminMod's post I'll end here. If you want to start a new thread then I'm game...if you think we can get somewhere.
The whole "don't exist in reality so there is nothing to define" line suggests to me once again that you are talking about anything that is fictional. But you said that isn't what you meant.
So frankly I am lost. If you think you can clear this up in a new thread I am game. But if you cannot be arsed no worries.
Oni writes:
I'll give you the last word unless you think a new thread is needed my friend.
My last word is that I remain confused as to the criteria you are applying in order to conclude that certain words are "meaningless". It doesn't make any sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by onifre, posted 10-25-2010 11:26 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by onifre, posted 10-26-2010 1:28 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024