|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inductive Atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
You are left without genuine 'scientific' evidence. This does not mean if 500 people saw me walk on water, it couldn't be considered evidence that a supernatural phenomenon occured. (of course, other options should be looked into first. Is it a trick ? is it an as-of-yet unknown natural phenomenon ?) At what point to do you give up looking for a natural explanation for a phenomena and declare it the product of the supernatural? More importantly, when has a supernatural explanation ever turned out to be the right answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: Straggler writes: People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these experiences evidence of exactly? I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available. There's plenty of scientific research on supernatural experiences. Where shall we start? During sleep paralysis is as good a time as any for people to have their mystical magical experiences, but it's certainly not the only time.
Sensed presences Sleep paralysis - Wikipedia Prophets like Moses receive commands. This can sometimes lead them to violence, as when Moses orders his followers to stone a man to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath; the special day of the Commander.
Command hallucinations in relation to violence in Asian schizophrenics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
There's plenty of scientific research on supernatural experiences. And those are just the modern versions of supernatural experiences. In previous ages lightning was thought to be supernatural as well as thousands of other phenomenon that we now explain through natural mechanisms. As Steven Weinberg put it:
quote: With this type of track record, why does any supernatural explanation hold weight?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The forensic processes are repeatable. The fingerprints can be examined by others. I know that. Slevesque seems to be saying that the event itself needs to be repeatable ... and by everyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I mean repeatable in it's scientific definition. In that anyone, anywhere, could repeat it and have the same results. While this would certainly be useful it does not describe, in total, repeatability. If the subject is "Cold Fusion" then, yes, anyone anywhere should be able to produce the same result. If we're talking paleontology then we're more trying to repeat the proponent's congregation of the facts and seeing if the analysis applied is sufficient. This also is repeatability. Stories of your walking on water is more the second type. If the scenario cannot be scrutinized for viability with no independent corroborating evidence, no supporting facts, you have no evidence. But further, if you can walk on water in Paris then you should be able to walk on water in Phoenix where I can watch and film it. If you cannot or will not then, it matters not how many people think they saw the original feat, you have nothing. The eye-witness testimony, notoriously bad to begin with, is so weak as to be non-existent. If there is one thing Fatima taught us it is that even a crowd of thousands can succumb to mass hysteria and vouch witness to an event that only one little girl says she saw.
I think we can agree that if it is up to someone's 'will' if something physically happens or not, then it is not repeatable in a scientific way. No, I do not agree. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
If there is one thing Fatima taught us it is that even a crowd of thousands can succumb to mass hysteria and vouch witness to an event that only one little girl says she saw. Some of us believers have also learned that we should not be distracted from our prize of the enjoyment of Christ by superstituous and sensational visions. The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians:
"Let no one defraud you ... dwelling on things which he has seen, vainly puffed up by his mind set on the flesh." (Col. 2:18) Visions for visions' sake are not to be quickly and undiscerningly attributed to God, like the Fatima fiasco. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why does being fictional or a cartoon character preclude it from being a supernatural concept?
It's a frikkin ghost!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available. And how does this justify the conclusion that these "subjective experiences" have supernatural rather than natural causes? RAZ says that documented experiences of this type constitute "objective empirical evidence". But what is he saying they are "objective empirical evidence" of exactly? And can he supply us with some examples of these documented experiences so we know exactly what he is talking about?
RAZD writes: Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings. More RAZ debate bollocks?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Straggler writes: RAZD writes: Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings. More RAZ debate bollocks? Seems that way. I would disagree with RAZD on this. The abundance of these documents and reports does nothing to move them from subjective evidence into the category of objective evidence, in my opinion. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Straggler writes: Why does being fictional or a cartoon character preclude it from being a supernatural concept? It's a frikkin ghost!!! I suppose it all comes down to semantics. In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural". The concept of a ghost or ghosts believed to have been experienced in the world by a person or persons would tentatively fit my definition, until investigation showed it was only imagined after all. Then it would no longer fit my definition. You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Could you tell RAZ this. He seems to be ignoring me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural". The concept of a ghost or ghosts believed to have been experienced in the world by a person or persons would tentatively fit my definition, until investigation showed it was only imagined after all. Then it would no longer fit my definition. As people are discussing cartoon characters and "subjective experiences", I may as well point out that cartoon characters are often experienced in hallucinations, and this can be combined with the delusion, either temporary or lasting, that they actually exist. I once listened to a recovered schizophrenic explaining why he had jumped out of a dangerously high window and broken his legs. It was assumed to be an impractical suicide attempt by his doctors, but actually his decision was rational in terms of the information he was getting. He was being chased by a cartoon monster which was trying to kill him, so he took the best option available to him. A number of conditions can produce such "subjective experiences". Here, the author describes her hallucinations following viral encephalitis. Unfortunately, it's behind a pay wall, but I can quote:
quote: Cartoon characters and Christ Christ, demons, angels, djinns, gods, fairies etc. are traditional "subjective experiences", but in modern times we can add cartoon characters and aliens from space which are experienced by people in cultures where a lot of cartoons are watched and where there's a lot of science fiction. I expect that Harry Potter and Gandalf have been "experienced" as real by some people somewhere by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time. So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me? Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
I feel the same way about Jesus. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Straggler writes: X writes: You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time. So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me? Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition. It's sort of the same thing that would make a school child, looking for the next prime number after some given large prime number P>>>>>2, disregard bothering to check any more even numbers. A simplification: If something has been explained well enough scientifically, it cannot be unexplained. We can move on to the next thing. You could thus propose:
The set of supernatural stuff (beings, things, events,...), whether it is an empty set or not, is contained inside the set of unexplained stuff. bluegenes theory predicts that this set is empty as a result of inductive reasoning, correct? - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024