Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 145 of 432 (657579)
03-29-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
03-29-2012 12:05 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Let's try a different approach.
Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being.
Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:16 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 148 by Panda, posted 03-29-2012 12:29 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 147 of 432 (657581)
03-29-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by jar
03-29-2012 12:16 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being.
Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?
jar writes:
We can investigate it.....
Right. We can investigate it scientifically because it is detectable. Whether it is supernatural or not is irrelevant to whether it can be investigated or not.
jar writes:
....and determine if it is explainable or unexplainable.
To determine anything requires investigation.
jar writes:
No, I can see no way that the scientific method could investigate the supernatural by definition.
Using the same methods and techniques that we use to investigate something that may or may not be supernatural.
Which part of this is confusing you?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 150 of 432 (657585)
03-29-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by jar
03-29-2012 12:31 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Do you now accept that it is possible to scientifically investigate the supernatural if the "the supernatural" in question is empirically detectable?
Or not?
jar writes:
You can investigate something that is claimed to be supernatural but you can never know whether or not your are investigating the supernatural unless you can show me some way to distinguish between just unknown and supernatural.
Whether one can know that one is investigating the supernatural is a separate issue.
The point is that the supernatural is not by definition immune from scientific investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 152 of 432 (657587)
03-29-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
03-29-2012 12:48 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
So you agree that we can investigate something that may or may not be supernatural but if it is supernatural then it is impossible to investigate it.
Too funny jar................
Too funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 12:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 1:10 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 155 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 161 of 432 (657612)
03-29-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Nuggin
03-29-2012 1:58 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Nug writes:
If something is "supernatural" it doesn't exist, therefore science can not "investigate" it.
So you think "supernatural" is a synonym of "nonexistent" then?
If not what do you see as the key difference between the two terms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 1:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 3:50 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 163 of 432 (657616)
03-29-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
03-29-2012 1:10 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
No, we can investigate something claimed to be supernatural, and we can determine if it is not supernatural or if it is unexplainable but so far no one has shown anyway that we could tell if it was supernatural.
Knowing that something is supernatural is irrelevant as to whether that thing can be studied scientifically or not.
If it exists and is detectable it can be scientifically studied.
It really is that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 1:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 3:51 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 169 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:00 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 170 of 432 (657625)
03-29-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Nuggin
03-29-2012 3:50 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Nuggin writes:
"Super"natural existing outside of reality.
By whose definition?
Nug writes:
It's possible that someone THINKS that something is supernatural but later it is revealed that it isn't
Is it conceivably possible that someone thinks something is supernatural and that it actually is?
Nug writes:
Example: Lightning.
Lightning is observable and natural by any common modern understanding. But Thor remains supernatural as a concept doesn't he?
And if a being exactly matching that concept we call Thor actually exists (along with his magic hammer etc.) then I think it would be somewhat disingenuous to insist that there is nothing supernatural in existence.
I doubt I believe in the actual existence of the supernatural any more than you do. But if an omnipotent, omniscient being who watches over us all, judges our souls and who sparked the universe into creation does actually exist then to say that this isn't supernatural by definition seems to be an exercise in definitional disingenuity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 3:50 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 6:19 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 172 of 432 (657628)
03-29-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
03-29-2012 4:00 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
So - Just to be clear - Can we study an event or entity if we are ignorant when beginning that study as to whether it is supernatural or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:15 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 186 of 432 (657662)
03-29-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Nuggin
03-29-2012 6:19 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Nuggin writes:
Dictionary.com for one.
supernatural  
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
A definition I wholeheartedly agree with.
Nug writes:
He just isn't _real_.
Where are you getting your connection between that which is beyond nature or unexplainable by natural law and that which cannot be real by definition?
An omnipotent omniscient God qualifies as "beyond what is natural" or "unexplainable by natural law" doesn't it? Thus it is supernatural by definition.
But as unlikely as the actual existence of such a thing may be I don't see how you can justifiably just define it out of existence by insisting it cannot be real because it qualifies as supernatural. You are conflating the definitions of "natural" and "real".
Do you think "natural" is a synonym for "real"...? If not what do you think the difference is between the two terms?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Nuggin, posted 03-29-2012 6:19 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 190 of 432 (657666)
03-29-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
03-29-2012 4:15 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
We can investigate an event or entity but can never investigate any supernatural aspect of the event.
If an entity is both empirically detectable and inherently supernatural (whether this is known or not) what is it that precludes us from putting it in a lab and investigating it and it's abilities scientifically?
Can you actually answer this rather than just assert that it is so?
jar writes:
The definition of supernatural is something that is not natural and caused by a being that is not natural.
OK. Why can't such a thing be scientifically investigated if able to be empirically detected?
jar writes:
Again that is just a nonsense question.
No doubt if we were all to make the same assumptions and apply the same definitions as you are this would be true. But are your assumptions and definitions justified or even the same as most other people's?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 4:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:12 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 218 of 432 (657728)
03-30-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
03-29-2012 7:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being.
Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?
jar writes:
We can investigate it.....
jar writes:
How do you test anything that is not natural?
Using the same methods and techniques that we would use to investigate things whose natural/supernatural status is unknown. Things such as entity A above. Things which you have already agreed we can investigate.
You obviously have some deep attachment to the notion that supernatural things are inherently immune from scientific investigation and aren't willing to have this notion challenged.
But the bottom line here is that if something exists and is detectable it can be scientifically studied. Whether it is supernatural, or known to be supernatural, has no bearing on this.
You haven't offered any reason for this not to be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:12 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 219 of 432 (657729)
03-30-2012 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
03-29-2012 8:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Perdie writes:
Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?
jar writes:
Nope. It's unexplained.
"Unexplained" and "supernatural" are not mutually exclusive.
Our hypothetical little green friend who may or may not be a genuinely supernatural/magical Leprechaun can teleport. We can scientifically investigate how far he can teleport. We can investigate how fast he can teleport (is it instantaneous and thus faster than light? etc. etc.). We can take skin grafts and blood samples, brain scans and urine samples. We can conduct material analysis on his litle green cloak. Whether he is a genuinely supernatural being has no bearing on our ability to conduct these tests. It depends only on the empirically verifiable existence of him and his abilities.
In short - We can scientifically study the little green entity in question whether it is supernatural or not.
So to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 8:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 10:47 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 221 of 432 (657738)
03-30-2012 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 10:26 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?
Numbers writes:
Well it stands to reason if something breaks the laws of physics, and is inexplicable to every and all inquiry then the only word that best describes such a thing would be....hmmm let me think.....oh yeah, supernatural
Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing or can a phenomenon be both detectable and inexplicable?
I refer you to the teleporting Leprechaun example above. Message 219
Numbers writes:
The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable and yet we have a inkling of they're existence, que no? Is dark matter supernatural?
I doubt it. But we are scientifically studying dark matter whether it is or isn't aren't we?
Numbers writes:
If existence itself is illusory then perhaps there is no such thing as supernatural. Perhaps its just a word we use when we do not know the answer.
The term certainly has a track record of being used by those who think they have an answer that has consistently turned out to be wrong.
But that isn't really the same thing.....
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:26 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:52 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 227 of 432 (657744)
03-30-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
03-30-2012 10:47 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
jar writes:
You can watch a magician (entertainer) and record his every move including all of the preparation that went before performing the trick. Perhaps that will provide enough evidence to understand how the magic trick was created; but that is not studying magic.
If you know it's a trick beforehand then you are not studying magic. Obviously.
But in the case of the Leprechaun you may or may not be studying something supernatural. You don't know beforehand.
We can scientifically study the little green entity in question whether it is supernatural or not. We can study it because it, and it's abilities, are empirically detectable.
So to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it still doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 10:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 11:29 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 229 of 432 (657748)
03-30-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:
Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing?
Numbers writes:
No.
Right. So then there can be something which is supernatural (i.e. inherently inexplicable in natural terms) but which is detectable. And if something is empirically detectable it is able to be investigated using the methods of science.
So, in principle at least, there is nothing to stop us investigating supernatural beings and events scientifically is there?
Numbers writes:
As of yet it is still inexplicable how abiogenesis occurred and yet we know it did.
Don't conflate "inexplicable" (i.e. inherently unable to be explained) with "unexplained" (i.e. able to be explained but presently lacking explanation)
Numbers writes:
We can detect the effects of quantum entanglement and yet it baffles and is inexplicable.
Do you mean inexplicable or unexplained?
Numbers writes:
These concepts are not supernatural but are a mystery.
Being a mystery doesn't mean they are supernatural. Correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:52 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 11:31 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024