CS writes:
As I said before, if it has objective empirical evidence and we can make predictions of it, then it is what we would label as natural.
No.
No? Why wouldn't we label something that has objective empirical evidence and we can make predictions of as natural? We always do that.
You are conflating a scientific explanation with objective empirical evidence that something exists.
Nope. You wrote:
quote:
I guess my point is that it is in principle possible to acquire objective empirical evidence of the supernatural using the hypothetico-deductive method.
Here's the
Hypothetical deductive method:
quote:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Gather data and look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture (hypothesis): When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: if you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test (or Experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.
Step 2 involves coming up with an explanation, its part of the method.
In my scenario we have objective empirical evidence of the supernatural hypothesis in question (i.e. GOD imbuing the devout with miraculous healing powers). We have predictable testable cause and effect.
Actually, you've affirmed the consequent. What observation would conflict with your prediction in order to disprove your hypothesis?
But that doesn't mean the healing powers in question have a scientific explanation or that GOD has now transformed into "natural" somehow.
Why do supermnatural things have to be random rather than predictable? Who says so?
Nobody. But regardless, we would still label it as natural. Even if it really was supernatural, if we could observe and predict it then we would call it natural.
And for the things that we can observe and predict, we don't say that we "believe in" those things. We just accept them as facts of knowledge. That's why it sounds stupid to say that you believe in gravity but remains perfectly clear to say that you believe in God. It implies that you don't have any facts to deal with, but you still operate as if it were true.
CS writes:
That's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist. I've had experiences that made me think that there's other stuff going on here that falls outside of what science knows.
CS previoulsy in this thread writes:
Subjective evidence can certainly be ignored, isn't really all that genuine, and doesn't give us a good indication of much of anything.
That seems contradictory.
That's because you're taking me out of context and trying to score points instead of trying to understand my position. The second quote was from a scientific perspective and was in reply to this accusation from you:
quote:
Really CS - For thread after thread, year after year you tell me that "subjective evidence" - Voices inside people's heads and suchlike - Cannot be ignored and that it is suggestive of supernatural beings actually existing. You have debated every single regular atheist participant here at EvC on the basis that these subjective experiences are genuinely indicative of the supernatural actually existing.
I've never said that it can't be ignored nor that it is genuinely indicative of the supernatural actually existing.
But it still can be convincing to an individual nonetheless. It can be ignored if you want to though.
™ Version 4.2