Summations Only

Sorry but how do you determine "Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural"?

You don't have to know it has an attribute for it to have that attribute, do you?

If, suddenly, all the people in the world became blind, would that suddenly mean grass was no longer green? The grass still has the attribute of being green, whether we can detect it or not.

And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.

The cause was supernatural. That means, the thing caused can be caused by something supernatural. That means the supernatural thing can cause the thing that was detected. Therefore, the detection of something that was caused by something supernatural tells us something about the supernatural. Whether we understand what it is telling us, whether we come to the correct conclusion about what it's telling us, whether we even know something is being told at all is irrelevant.

If someone whispers something at us in a foreign language that nobody heard, doesn't diminish the fact that something was todl to us. We don't know something was told, if we did, we wouldn't know the content of what was told, and even if we did, we might be misinterpreting it, but all of that is irrelevant to the fact that something was told.

AbE:

And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.

I actually disagree with this, too. If something's origin is supernatural, it, itself, is supernatural.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

First about your example.

What you recorded is not the supernatural act but rather the very natural result of it.

Now back to the subject.

You have not shown any supernatural things tested.

Percy writes: It's the Noble prize for whomever figures out how to scientifically study the supernatural. It isn't like there's any lack of motivation.

I wish I could figure out. I could use the money

Percy writes: The funny thing about the supernatural is that the more we discover about the world and universe in which we live, the fewer things are ascribed to the supernatural. The history of the supernatural is that it blossoms during periods of ignorance.

Yes, a superstitious culture tends to attribute everything unexplainable to being supernatural.

Percy writes: Science uses evidence as the glue that connects our understanding to the actual universe. A supernatural that leaves no detectable impression on reality is the same as no supernatural at all.

Agreed. After reading the numerous posts hashing out the term 'supernatural', 'unexplainable' or 'unknown' seems to fit better when discussing phenomenon in a scientific context, even though I am the guilty party for using 'supernatural' which sparked the debate.

Edited by bridgebuilder, : No reason given.

What you recorded is not the supernatural act but rather the very natural result of it.

How can a natural effect have a supernatural cause? If a magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor and landed on your driveway to poof a cake into existence and hand it to you, you'd call the cake natural? If so, then we have vastly different ideas of what is or is not supernatural.

You have not shown any supernatural things tested.

Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?

If it is, then measuring its weight, though weight is not a supernatural attribute, is still measuring something supernatural, namely the leprechaun.

If it isn't, then again, we have vastly different definitions of what is supernatural.

To me, something is supernatural if it can do or was caused by something that violates natural laws such as the conservation of mass/energy.

How can a natural effect have a supernatural cause?

I have no idea or an idea of how that could be tested, as this and many other threads should make clear.

If a magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor and landed on your driveway to poof a cake into existence and hand it to you, you'd call the cake natural?

Well I could eat the cake and say that the cake was real and very natural, but all I could say about the "magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor" is that it was something I cannot explain.

Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?

Nope. It's unexplained.

Nuggin writes: Nope. "they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. "

You are right. I stand corrected.

An Atheist [fool] (Psalm 53.3) taught me about "The Parable of Creation."
1) Genesis 1.11: ... the earth [will] bring forth grass, the bush ..."
2) Genesis 2.4-5: This is the history of the heavens [always plural because of day (sun) and night (moon)] ... before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any bush of the field had grown ...
A) The fool (Atheist - Psalm 53.3) was hilarious at his discovery.
5) I was both burning with shame and hilarious -- because I had never noticed this.
6) The Fool (Atheist) let his mouth run away with him. stating, "This proves the Bible is full of errors -- and there is no God"; But the Creation was not dated. The Earth is falling apart, but this is an undated period after the Final Resurrection. Gen. 8.22.
God has always sent knowledge to Atheists, turned to Wisdom by servants of God.

Your subtitle is wrong.

You seem to be a typical bible-quoting creo.

Great.
Another nutter that has replaced their ability to write with the ability to make up complete shite.

Sheesh. You can't even count to 6.
"1...2...A...5...6"

Sid Williams writes: God has always sent knowledge to Atheists

Well, he definitely didn't send any to you.

subbie writes: You seem to be a typical bible-quoting creo.

I am not convinced he is 'typical' (although he is far from being unique).

The weirdly formatted semi-biblical illiterate nonsense reminds me of CrazyDiamond7's posts.
They appear to be obsessed with brackets.
e.g. "This is the history of the heavens [always plural because of day (sun) and night (moon)]"

I think I would categorise them as 'not on this planet' - only a couple of steps away from being sectioned like Dennis Markuze.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Sid Williams, and welcome to the fray.

An Atheist [fool] ... ... The fool (Atheist ... ... The Fool (Atheist) ...

Please note that when other people start to insult you and call you names that you began it, and you opened with it being on the table.

Of course the ad hominem and strawman arguments are old invalid logical forms, arguments that fools might use.

... "This proves the Bible is full of errors -- and there is no God"; ...

Curiously, I do not know of any atheists that make this claim -- perhaps you can substantiate your purported quote with a link to someone that did?

Please note that I am not an atheist.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Panda writes: Buzsaw writes: Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads. We are not including imaginary types of creationists. (If that kind of creationist existed then you wouldn't still be banned from the science forums.)

Only designations one, two and three allowed in science forums; you know, the YEC conventionalist ones who are easily rebutted.

{Percy writes: It's those who not only believe in a Higher Being but also claim to have proof of his existence that are thought to be playing with less than a full deck.

We evidence apprised ones know that hypotheses are generally
not proven by evidence. They are supported by evidence.

Nuggin writes: If a being exactly matching Thor "actually exists" then he is not supernatural by definition because... he _actually exists_.

Are you saying the unknown constitues as evidence that something doesn't exist?

Do things only exist after we discover them?

So you're saying that the SN is non-existant due to the fact that there is no natural test to test the SN and if there was then that is evidence that the SN does not exist?

The supernatural either doesn't exist or exists in a way we can never know about. (Because it doesn't interact with our natural world in any way that we can distinguish).

So in summary, it either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter to us if it does.