Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernaturalism: Does It Work?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 41 (70291)
12-01-2003 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MEH
12-01-2003 12:48 PM


Re: Supernatural and Superfluous
I think the issue is not the question of a personal faith in an underlying supernatural reality. The issues are whether such a belief is testable and if it adds anything to the enquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MEH, posted 12-01-2003 12:48 PM MEH has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 41 (70520)
12-02-2003 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by MEH
12-01-2003 1:33 PM


Re: Supernatural and Superfluous
It seems that you are making two contradictory claims.
1) That there is and can be no evidence ofr the supernatural. That it must be an a priori assumption
and
2) That there can be and is strong evidence for the supernatural (i.e. that it is "verified")
I believe that the first alternative represents your position but that would make you claim that the supernatural is "verified methodically" false. It is not and cannot be verified at all.
So let me put it to you that in your view Supernaturalism is an asumption that adds nothing to science. It does not "work" - it is not even relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MEH, posted 12-01-2003 1:33 PM MEH has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MEH, posted 12-02-2003 8:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 41 (70545)
12-02-2003 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by MEH
12-02-2003 8:42 AM


Re: Supernatural and Superfluous
It seems that the contradiction is deeply embedded in your thinking. You can't have it both ways.
Either the supernatural *is* testable and it is unfairly ruled out or it *isn't* testable and it has to be an a priori assumption that can never be validated. Pick one. But if you pick the first then be prepared to argue for it.
Take your example of the "divine proportion" - can you offer any genuinely testable explanation ? How can you ACTALLY verify that it is the product of the divine ? Or is it that the reason why one has to be biased in favour of the conclusion to accept the argument simply a sign that the argument is so weak as to be of no value ?
And I'd also appreciate it if you didn't try to evade discussion of the contradiction in your arguments by misepresenting - or in this case - fabricating - my position.
Methodological naturalism does not exclude intelligent design. "Intelligent Design" says so as an excuse to explain away their failures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by MEH, posted 12-02-2003 8:42 AM MEH has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by MEH, posted 12-02-2003 9:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 41 (70549)
12-02-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by MEH
12-02-2003 9:42 AM


Re: Supernatural and Superfluous
I suggest you reread Mammuthus' post. He does not say that intelligent design as a general concept - which of course includes human design - is outside methodological naturalism. He does say that the Intelligent Design movement has failed to make a scientific case for intelligent design - he states "They have been unable to propose a testable hypothesis for intelligent design and have thus stagnated".
If I do not understand your posiiton it is because you have been very unclear. In your early posts the difference you expressed was between attributing the observed regularities in nature to, well, nature and to an underlying supernatural cause. That's simply a difference of outlook with no real significance to the actual work of science. Then you suddenly introduced the idea of being able to test and verify the supernatural but you have only vaguely hinted of how that could be done and your own words suggest that the evidence is too weak to justify a claim of verification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by MEH, posted 12-02-2003 9:42 AM MEH has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024