|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
I supplied enough information to answer your question. But you still offer no information.If you want a different answer then you need to ask a different question. jar writes:
I don't know. but what tests would show that it really was supernatural?I would have to study it to find out. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
No. Because science can investigate anything which is real and detectable can't it?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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024