Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 121 of 432 (657542)
03-29-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by jar
03-29-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
Supernatural though is a subset of unknown, things where the actual cause are not natural.
Right. Things like the hypothetical genuinely magical leprechauns we have been discussing. They would qualify as "supernatural" because they are genuinely magical and thus not limited to natural causes.
jar writes:
We can test things and determine that they have a natural cause, that they have an unknown clause, but I can see no way we could test something and determine that it has a supernatural cause.
But do you accept that simply being supernatural doesn't preclude something from being investigated by applying the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 122 of 432 (657543)
03-29-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
03-29-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Right. Things like the hypothetical genuinely magical leprechauns we have been discussing. They would qualify as "supernatural" because they are genuinely magical and thus not limited to natural causes.
I would say no.
But do you accept that simply being supernatural doesn't preclude something from being investigated by applying the scientific method?
No, I can see no way that the scientific method could investigate the supernatural by definition.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 10:49 AM jar has replied

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


Message 123 of 432 (657545)
03-29-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by 1.61803
03-29-2012 10:37 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Numbers writes:
Supernatural by definition is that which is beyond the natural world.
In what sense "beyond"....?
Being inherently beyond scientific/naturalistic understanding doesn't necessarily make something beyond scientific investigation does it?
Because science can investigate anything which is real and detectable can't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 1.61803, posted 03-29-2012 10:37 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 03-29-2012 10:53 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 128 by Panda, posted 03-29-2012 10:56 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 124 of 432 (657546)
03-29-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
03-29-2012 10:43 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
Supernatural though is a subset of unknown, things where the actual cause are not natural.
Straggler writes:
Right. Things like the hypothetical genuinely magical leprechauns we have been discussing. They would qualify as "supernatural" because they are genuinely magical and thus not limited to natural causes.
jar writes:
I would say no.
If the actual cause of magical leprechauns is magical rather than natural how can they not be supernatural?
jar writes:
No, I can see no way that the scientific method could investigate the supernatural by definition.
What definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:54 AM Straggler has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 125 of 432 (657547)
03-29-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
03-29-2012 10:29 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
But you still offer no information.
I supplied enough information to answer your question.
If you want a different answer then you need to ask a different question.
jar writes:
but what tests would show that it really was supernatural?
I don't know.
I would have to study it to find out.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:29 AM jar has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 126 of 432 (657548)
03-29-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Straggler
03-29-2012 10:45 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Because science can investigate anything which is real and detectable can't it?
I fear this may be off topic Straggler. I seem to remember a 300 plus post on this very topic. It came down to what one defines as supernatural.
I agree that science can and does investigate anything that is real and detectable. But if the "thing" being investigated is undetectable does that make it "unreal"? Or yet undetected?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 10:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:03 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 432 (657549)
03-29-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Straggler
03-29-2012 10:49 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
The definition of supernatural is something that is not natural and caused by a being that is not natural.
I can see no way of testing that can determine if something is magical.
We can determine that something is NOT magical, but how can we test to see if it IS magical?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 10:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:00 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 128 of 432 (657551)
03-29-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Straggler
03-29-2012 10:45 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Because science can investigate anything which is real and detectable can't it?
No.
Jar is clearly stating that if a leprechaun was standing in front of us, then we would not be able to photograph, weigh, measure, x-ray ... or any of the other 1000's of scientific tests available.
Nope.
Makes no sense to me. *shrug*

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 10:45 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 129 of 432 (657552)
03-29-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
03-29-2012 10:15 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Again, what we can test is only the natural unless you can show me a method of testing the supernatural.
We can test what we can observe. Doesn't matter if you label it natural or supernatural. There is no step in the scientific method that says, "See if the phenomenon is natural". Instead, the scientific method requires observations. Strangely, it is only our preconceptions that require the supernatural to be unobservable.
You can test the magical Leprechauns but I can see only two possible answers; "no, what is observed is natural" or "What is observed is unexplained".
What is observed is observed and can be used as part of the scientific method. There is really no reason to go further than that.
What is meant by "methodological naturalism" is that you can not insert unobservable and unfalsifiable supernatural mechanisms into the hypothesis. My own personal opinion is that observable and testable supernatural mechanisms are entirely allowable in the method.
On the face of it, there is simply no reason why the supernatural should be unobservable (unless it doesn't exist). In fact, religions from around the world list observed supernatural events in their religious texts. Moses followed a pillar of fire and smoke while food rained down from the heavens, for one example. Surely these would be observable if they happened now. It is just strange that once the scientific method came to fruition that these supernatural events suddenly stopped occuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 11:05 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 03-29-2012 11:05 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 130 of 432 (657554)
03-29-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
03-29-2012 10:54 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
The definition of supernatural is something that is not natural and caused by a being that is not natural.
So can you explain how genuinely magical Leprechauns don't qualify?
jar writes:
We can determine that something is NOT magical, but how can we test to see if it IS magical?
You are still conflating conclusions with investigations. That something is supernatural/magical isn't necessarily a barrier to investigating or studying it is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 10:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 11:07 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 135 by 1.61803, posted 03-29-2012 11:19 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 131 of 432 (657555)
03-29-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by 1.61803
03-29-2012 10:53 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Numbers writes:
I agree that science can and does investigate anything that is real and detectable.
Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?
Numbers writes:
But if the "thing" being investigated is undetectable does that make it "unreal"? Or yet undetected?
If it is undetetable how can it ever be detected and how can anyone ever claim to have any inkling of it's existence?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by 1.61803, posted 03-29-2012 10:53 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:26 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 432 (657556)
03-29-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
03-29-2012 10:58 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
But how can one observe or identify or see or test "supernatural"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 03-29-2012 10:58 AM Taq has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 133 of 432 (657557)
03-29-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
03-29-2012 10:58 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Tag writes:
On the face of it, there is simply no reason why the supernatural should be unobservable (unless it doesn't exist).
Yes this follows.
If something supernatural is detected and examined scientifically; then would that not in fact show it to be natural and not supernatural?
Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 03-29-2012 10:58 AM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 134 of 432 (657558)
03-29-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Straggler
03-29-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
HUH?
How do we know they are magical, any different than Carnac the Magnificent?
We can test to see if they are natural, but what test shows they are supernatural?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:26 AM jar has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 135 of 432 (657561)
03-29-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Straggler
03-29-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Hi Straggler, we hashed this out already in several supernatural threads. I do not want to way lay the OP 3 kinds of creationist thread.
If you feel the need to investigate further the meaning of supernatural, why not start a new thread? I realize I could of kept my mouth shut so apologize for piping in.
In my opinion, the supernatural is that which is not within the realm of the natural. That which defies the laws of physics. That which is inexplicable. If something touted as being supernatural is at last found to be explained scientifically, then by definition it is no longer supernatural.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:37 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but 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