|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Tag writes: Hi Taq. So does this count as an observation of the supernatural? Why not just call gravity supernatural since, like dark matter, we can not directly observe gravity, only its effects on surrounding objects. I do think it is a observation. And as you stated the gravaton has yet to be discovered. But science has long shown gravity to be a natural force in our universe and imo doesn't qualify as supernatural, nor does the strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Tag writes: The supernatural is irrelevant to how nature works since the supernatural has no discernable effect on nature. According to some superstitious people this is not they're view. In fact some folks report all manner of ghost interacting with the physical world. Sure we can dismiss the claims as clap trap, but nonetheless the superstitions remain. What if the supernatural operated in the realm of yet unseen dimensions and the interactions that are registered in our world are transient? Kinda like the thought that Gravity in some other undetected dimension is such a extremely strong force; that it can be detected in our universe's dimensional plane as relatively weak. Would undetected dimensional forces be able to have influences in our universe? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again even with the leprechaun you are not studying the supernatural. You are still just studying the natural aspects of some object.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: No.
So, in principle at least, there is nothing to stop us investigating supernatural beings and events scientifically is there? Don't conflate "inexplicable" (i.e. inherently unable to be explained) with "unexplained" (i.e. able to be explained but presently lacking explanation) Dude, why would something be inherently unable to be explained? And if something is inherently unable to be explained then it is by definition both unexplained and inexplicable.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words AntonymsAdj. 1. unexplained - not explained; "accomplished by some unexplained process" undetermined - not yet having been ascertained or determined; "of undetermined species" 2. unexplained - having the reason or cause not made clear; "an unexplained error" incomprehensible, inexplicable - incapable of being explained or accounted for; "inexplicable errors"; "left the house at three in the morning for inexplicable reasons" "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: Dude, why would something be inherently unable to be explained? Because it is supernatural as "supernatural" is commonly defined and conceived by those who believe in such things. I doubt jar (for example) thinks that understanding the nature of the god he believes in is just a matter of scientific progress or building a big enough particle accelerator. Likewise the god Buz believes in. In fact I have never met a supernaturalist yet who doesn't define the object of their beliefs as being materially inexplicable in some sense. That's why they are called supernatural beliefs.....
Numbers writes: And if something is inherently unable to be explained then it is by definition both unexplained and inexplicable. Sure. But that which is unexplained is not necessarily inexplicable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I have no idea or an idea of how that could be tested, as this and many other threads should make clear. This has nothing to do with testing, this is purely a definitional issue.
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. You could eat and say it was real. How could you say it was natural? It wasn't cooked in an oven, there were no eggs or flour or any other ingredients mixed together. That is not a "natural" cake. At least, I definitely wouldn't classify it as such.
Nope. It's unexplained. Can something be both supernatural and unexplained? Your answer implies supernatural doesn't exist, but I know that's not your position. Is God supernatural? Nope, just unexplained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Again even with the leprechaun you are not studying the supernatural. How do you know the Leprechaun isn't supernatural?
jar writes: You are still just studying the natural aspects of some object. We are studying an entity that may or may not be supernatural and it's abilities which may or may not be supernatural. On what basis do you insist otherwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You could eat and say it was real. How could you say it was natural? It wasn't cooked in an oven, there were no eggs or flour or any other ingredients mixed together. That is not a "natural" cake. At least, I definitely wouldn't classify it as such. But what I have that can be tested is a cake. I can chemically analyze it and even tell what components went into it. The cake is completely normal. Now the source is "unknown" and that's about all we can say about that.
Can something be both supernatural and unexplained? Your answer implies supernatural doesn't exist, but I know that's not your position. Is God supernatural? Nope, just unexplained. Unknown is a very broad term and yes, something supernatural is also unexplained. But considering what humans can say they know or can study, all that I can say about GOD is "Yes, God is unexplained and I see no way I can study God". That GOD exists and is also supernatural is a belief and at least as long as I am alive I cannot imagine any way that I could ever test or study GOD or anything that is truly supernatural.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I never said I know the leprechaun is not supernatural, what I said is that we can only study those aspects that are natural. We have no way to study the supernatural.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I never said I know the leprechaun is not supernatural, what I said is that we can only study those aspects that are natural. I described to you the study of the Leprechauns teleporting abilities. I don't see how you can know that the Leprechauns teleporting abilities are natural?
jar writes: We have no way to study the supernatural. So you keep blanket asserting. But if the supernatural entity or phenomenon in question is empirically detectable - Why on Earth not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Ok, but one doesn't have to probe the physical existence of God to find natural examples of the inexplicable. QM is loaded with examples.
I doubt jar (for example) thinks that understanding the nature of the god he believes in is just a matter of scientific progress or building a big enough particle accelerator. In fact I have never met a supernaturalist yet who doesn't define the object of their beliefs as being materially inexplicable in some sense.
Yes now your getting it! And I might add that a naturalist can define the objects of his study as completely natural. Thats why they are called naturalist. Hmmm I see a pattern here. That's why they are called supernatural beliefs..... I am a monist though I believe it is all one stuff. And when you get right down to it there isn't even stuff. It is all maya. It is not that big a stretch for someone to equate this with a all encompassing deity such as a god/gods or your chosen comfort food. "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 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I described to you the study of the Leprechauns teleporting abilities. I don't see how you can know that the Leprechauns teleporting abilities are natural? Good thing that I didn't make that claim then. What I said was that we can only study what was natural. We can observe that the thing being study was here and then appeared over there. Being here is normal, being there is normal, getting from her to there is "unexplained" and so far you have not shown how that part gets studied.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: It is not that big a stretch for someone to equate this with a all encompassing deity such as a god/gods or your chosen comfort food. Is this all-encompassing thing inherently unable to be scientifically investigated and understood? If not then it doesn't meet one of the main criteria that supernaturalists attach to the object of their beliefs and so I'm not convinced that your monism is the all encompassing answer you seem to think it is.
Numbers writes: Ok, but one doesn't have to probe the physical existence of God to find natural examples of the inexplicable. QM is loaded with examples. Is it? I am unaware of anything in QM that is inherently inexplicable rather than just something to be investigated. What did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024