Summations Only

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..... Sure. But that which is unexplained is not necessarily inexplicable.

How do you know the Leprechaun isn't supernatural? 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?

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? So you keep blanket asserting. But if the supernatural entity or phenomenon in question is empirically detectable - Why on Earth not?

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. 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?

You did assert that we cannot study that which is supernatural. I described us studying the Leprechauns teleporting abilities. This would seem to suggest that you deny that the Leprechaun's teleportation abilities can be supernatural.So - Do you agree that we don't know if the Leprechaun's teleportation ability is supernatural or not?

Our experimenters sit down and ask the Leprechaun how he teleports. He tells us that he just visualises where he wants to be and then wills it and it happens. We show him an empty room and ask him to teleport. He does. Then later we secretly fill the room with water and ask him to teleport into it again to see if he still can.......And so on and so forth. Observation. Prediction. Experimentation. Etc.Now we still don't know whether his teleporting ability is supernatural or not. But we are indisputably investigating this teleporting ability.Given that we are indisputably studying this ability and given that we both agree that this ability may or may not be supernatural it is nonsensical to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it.You are spouting contradictory nonsense jar.

You seem to be engaging in unjustifiable quantum mysticism and conflating the role of the observer in QM with the need for some sort of ultimate consciousness.

We will. Because I shall be having a joyous time investigating the (potentially supernatural) abilities of our little green friend.Your claim that the supernatural is inherently immune from investigation has been shown to be false. Of course you will never accept this.....Immunity from investigation is too much a part of your own supernatural beliefs to ever accept otherwise.But there you go.

So do you think you are dreaming?Or is the absence of evidence that you are dreaming a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that you aren't?

But if godly deceit is a possibility worthy of genuine consideration then how can you have any knowledge of anything at all? Everything you experience must be deemed as no more likely to be true than false.Or do you think we can legitimately dismiss un-evidenced but unfalsifiable claims such as the notion that godly deceit is going on all around us?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I too find your inconsistencies and equivocations amusing. Why indeed? Yet here we are considering what some impossible-to-evidence GOD may or may not be able to do.So on one hand you explicitly say that we should not consider that which can not be evidenced (such as the GOD planting finger prints at a crime scene). On the other hand this whole conversation is only taking place because we are considering the existence of this un-evidenced GOD you believe in. OK. On that basis why consider the existence of GOD at all?

On the contrary - You have made it quite clear that you hold some impossible-to-evidence things in disdain. Things like the notion that all evidence has been falsely planted.It is the consideration that you give to other equally impossible-to-evidence things that I find amusing.Why you think your own impossible-to-evidence notions are superior to those you show disdain for remains a mystery. You tell me. Why are some impossible-to-evidence things worthy of consideration and others not?

So do you agree that your own impossible-to-evidence beliefs are no more or less worthy of consideration than the impossible-to-evidence notion of which you were so disdainful that all evidence has been falsely but undetectably planted?Because I am happy to treat them with equal disdain. This is the wisest yet most inconsistent thing I think you have ever said here.

I'll take that as a grudging 'Yes'.Perhaps the next time you are disdainfully admonishing someone else here at EvC for their particular brand of un-evidenced and thus un-worthy-of-consideration nonsense you will reflect on your own equally worthless notions.

Oh. So your impossible-to-evidence notions are more worthy of consideration than equally impossible-to-evidence notions held by others?