Peanut Gallery

If you want to know whether or not Harry Potter has supernatural abilities ask JK Rowling rather than the scientific community. If you want to know whether the Christ of Christianity is a supernatural entity or not ask Chuck or Slevesque or BUz rather than the scientific community. If you want to know whether Vishnu is a supernatural entity or not ask a Hindu.If you want to know whether thunder and lightning can be explained naturally ask the scientific community. If you want to know whether Thor is s supernatural being or not then ask an expert in Norse mythology.Concepts are defined as supernatural based on the meaning of "supernatural" as pertaining to existence outside of the natural world and/or possessing powers that violate or go beyond natural forces. The scientific community has very little to do with it. That is why Thor is still a supernatural being despite the fact that science long ago made any supernatural cause for thunder and lightning obsolete to all but the most philosophically pedantic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

For the past few years RAZ has been asserting that ANY conclusion regarding anything unfalsifiable is necessarily and logically nothing more than a subjective opinion. If he now wants to equivocate by throwing in words like hypothetical, conjecture, guess and belief into the mix as well then I suppose he can. But it doesn't make his arguments any less flawed.And yes all of his words indicate tentativity. But they do so by denying any capacity for scientific knowledge at all. Instead everything from the existence of god based on religious experience to the predicted motion of a falling pen based on a wealth of scientific understanding is lumped together as "opinion". Then there is hope for you yet.

Sure. A black hole inherently has an escape velocity that is equal to or in excess of the speed of light. No, not like that. I'm not suggesting, and nor is Straggler that idealism is correct. We're talking about defining properties, not ideal forms.There are defining features of placental mammals, even though we don't believe in an ideal placental mammal. We can use these 'inherently placental' features to discriminate between placentals and marsupials. It's the supernaturalists who have overstepped the mark if anyone has, since they are the ones that have defined supernatural entities as being beyond the scope of natural explanation. Straggler is just taking them at their word that supernatural things are definitionally beyond natural explanations - and are therefore inherently inexplicable in those terms.Personally, I reject the notion that the supernatural is inherently inexplicable - I think it is merely a cheap escape clause to evade the scrutiny of skepticism.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Straggler asks again: What was wrong with my answer? Here it is, again: How about I turn it back on you: Are you able to give an example of something supernatural that can conceivably actually exist?Continuing: Remember: Continuing: If we know it's fictional already, we can save time & money. Rowling's fictional supernatural stuff is known to be fictional. She is the Bobby Henderson of all things in Harry Potter world. She is all the forensic evidence we would need.As for how am I deciding? Actually, because I am not a respected member of the scientific community specializing in this field, I don't get to decide. I leave it up to the experts in this field to decide, partially using some kind of equipment bluegenes has yet to describe. Maybe bluegenes can help you out, but I think this is where the crux of the issue lies - because all he has shown are procedures that fall into detection of fictional supernatural concepts. He has yet to describe how his experiments and procedures can detect ("beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt") a real supernatural being.Indeed: All we've seen from him is the fictional side. Is there some kind of phlogistonator/doohicky/thingamabob in his laboratory or field truck? Or maybe he has a specially equipped little Italian car?

Modulous says: Okay...I guess I would have preferred the word "characteristically", because to me "inherently" carries with it a connotation of the absolute. Perhaps it's a USA/UK thing.Continuing: Interesting. How do you feel about interchanging "inexplicable" with "unexplainable"? How do you feel about "not describable in a manner that shows how the phenomenon occurs that is acceptable to the scientific community"?Also, does this mean you would support the Xongsmith Analemma?

No, because many proposed supernatural beings can influence the natural world in various ways. I believe that it is possible to empirically confirm the existence of many supernatural beings, should they exist.While they may or may not defy natural explanation, their existence can still be evidenced.

Interesting.Modulous writes: Can I ask you to elaborate a bit on what it is to be evidenced? We have seen blurry photos of UFOs, Sasquatch and even ghosts captured on video. These have always turned out not to be real evidence. And while I'm at it, "explanation"?For me, "natural explanation" is basically "describable in a manner that shows how the phenomenon occurs that is acceptable to the scientific community". And "objective evidence" is something that anyone in the field of investigation would see and know how to reproduce on their own, independently, whether they actually do reproduce it or not. This evidence would be able to be examined independently in some satisfactory manner to eliminate improperly uncalibrated biases or data fabrication or other dishonest field work.

I've said it a few times now, for instance Message 1282. I've used the example of a ghost of person who is confirmed dead, who has the personality and memories of the deceased. We could confirm that it is real by using a password system, to prove that real information is being transmitted, and it is not a hallucination. We might obtain evidence that ghosts exist, but we don't therefore know how memories survive brain death. We would know ghosts exist, but we can't explain them.

One that will satisfy you? None dude. I cannot make any better arguments than RAZD has and yet you still fight him tooth and nail.My logic is impared by my experience.How to become a Christian:I acknowledge I am a sinner in need of a Savior - this is to repent or turn away from sinI believe in my heart that God raised Jesus from the dead - this is to trust that Jesus paid the full penalty for my sinsI confess Jesus as my Lord and my God - this is to surrender control of my life to JesusI receive Jesus as my Savior forever - this is to accept that God has done for me and in me what He promisedHere's a prayer: Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life."That is all I know to do. If you do that sincerly you are guarenteed an experience that will change your life forever and you will finally meet the ever elusive God and you know that you did.You will be expedited up to the #1 position on the Dawkins scale that so many believe to be delusional.If I come across any future ways that will detect the SN I will let you know. For now, this is all I got.

It isn't an answer. You might just as well say "something". You continue to define "supernatural" in such a way that nothing actually supernatural can ever actually exist whilst simultaneously proclaiming your RAZ compatible agnosticism. It's nonsense. I have. Numerous times. Here hey are again. Ghosts, goblins, Thor, Vishnu, Christ, Voldermort, fairies, leprechauns, mermaids, vampires, werewolves, pixies, Allah, Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Does the same apply to all of my examples above? Or are there any amongst those whose existence you don't deem to be mathematically impossible? How can you claim such certainty? Are you a preudoskeptic? Specialising in what field? If you want to know whether thunder and lightning have a natural explanation ask a scientist. If you want to know whether Thor is a supernatural being ask an expert in Norse mythology.You can't know that anything is fictional to the stupid degree of certainty that RAZ is demanding. So how are you claiming to know that any of these things don't actually exist? "Beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt"......?You cannot prove that something is supernatural any more than you can prove that something is natural.As to how you detect any of these entities - Well empirically obviously. How else are you going to detect them in such a way that they can be known to science? And if they can't be detected by our senses you need to explain how they are being detected at all without falling foul of the mind-body problem. Bluegenes theory is that all such concepts are fictional. Partly it is based on the mutual exclusivity of different specific concepts. Partly it is based on demonstrable aspects of human psychology. The theory is falsified by presenting any concrete evidence for any supernatural entity. For example:A giant red haired viking able to summon storms and blast bolts of lightning at will turns up. He wields an indestructible hammer and is himself apparently impervious to harm. Scientists study this being in a lab. They puzzle over his superhuman strength, lack of DNA and weather controlling abilities. Similarly the hammer is made on no known substance and proves to be utterly immune from all known modes of material investigation attempted to determine it's composition. The hammer and it's mighty owner are inexplicable as far as modern science is concerned. The scientists release a statement to the enthralled onlooking world: "Whilst we will continue to investigate this phenomenon and test various speculative hypotheses to the best of our ability we currently have no explanation for the origin or abilities of this entity. In light of this failure we suggest that other avenues of research are conducted in parallel to our own ongoing investigations".The world's leading experts in Norse mythology are assembled. They start to interview our mighty red headed entity. Not only does he know as much about the myths and history in which our experts excel as they do, he is actually able to fill in the gaps in their knowledge in consistent and credible ways. His linguistic abilities and knowledge combined with his amazing superhuman abilities are all consistent with one conclusion. The Norse mythology experts hold a press conference: "As amazing as it seems we have come to the conclusion that the being whom we have been interviewing recently is entirely consistent with a being that exactly matches the Norse God Thor as believed to exist by the ancient vikings. What this incredible conclusion means to mankind can only be speculated upon. But the facts are consistent with this conclusion".At that point bluegenes theory would have been well and truly falsified wouldn't it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes faith is all you have. You are quite right that in his own way way RAZ too is doing nothing more than special pleading human belief as a form of evidence.

And you broke my balls in the past for saying that Science is silent in matters of faith.

I assume you are talking about this thread Message 60 (up and down from linked message)Science has much to say about why people believe in the unfalsifiable things that they do.But it has little to do with defining Thor as a supernatural being.

Oh my goodness!! You missed it by only 1 post, golden!!!Just a smidgeon too early to release the bowstring! Wow.
Edited by xongsmith, : wrong too/to

If anyone wants to give an example of a "matter of faith" upon which science must be silent I suggest that they take it to the thread I linked to in my reply to golden.But you would do well to have a read of that thread first........