Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,786 Year: 4,043/9,624 Month: 914/974 Week: 241/286 Day: 2/46 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2519 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 495 of 549 (586245)
10-12-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Jon
10-12-2010 12:41 AM


Re: Is it possible
You fail to provide criteria for distinguishing supernatural claims from non-supernatural ones.
What makes the claims supernatural?
"Natural" claims would be those things which occur within the confines of reality.
"Supernatural" claims would be those things which occur outside the confines of reality.
We typically consider a claim "supernatural" if it cites an undetected/undetectable force or agent which engages in some sort of manipulation which can not be demonstrated to exist.
For example:
A "witch" using undetectable and ill defined "magic" causes "bad luck" to happen to a victim.
How do we measure this "magic"? How do we know how much "magic" is being used? How do we know when it starts or stops?
How do we measure the "bad luck"? How do we determine what is caused by the "magic" versus what would have happened normally?
Now, you can make an argument that there are forces which were previously undefined and therefore may have seemed supernatural prior to science explaining them.
A magnet may appear supernatural to someone who's never seen one. It's an object capable of moving metal against the force of gravity without any strings attached. It will work through other objects, etc.
However, an observer CAN measure the presence of the magnet. They CAN test the strength. They CAN demonstrate when it is working vs when it is not working. It's CLEARLY a phenomena which is occurring, observable, and while "unexplained" (for that observer) can be experimented on/with by people dealing with the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 12:41 AM Jon has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2519 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 501 of 549 (586331)
10-12-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Jon
10-12-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Too Many to be True?
Why must only one deity be real-enough to effect higher yields? If there was an increase in yield after sacrifices to any 'supernatural' entity, why would this not support them all? If there is an increase in yield after sacrificing to Mubu and after sacrificing to Yubeem, but not when sacrifices are made to others, is this 'fairly decent supportive verifying evidence' for Mubu and Yubeem? What if it is three deities? Four? How many deities must be 'confirmed' before we have 'too many' to serve as 'supportive verifying evidence'?
You are missing out on a few important concepts.
#1) Plausible mechanism.
If you want to imply that goat sacrifice causes better harvest, you need to at least postulate a mechanism. In this case, it's "magic" - which unfortunately for you is the same thing as saying "make believe".
No one claims that gravity is caused by magic or that magnets are caused by magic. "Magic" is the answer people give when they are too lazy to bother doing the work.
#2) Plausible causal agent.
If you want to imply that goat sacrifice causes better harvest through "magic" from Mubu, you need to explain why murdering a goat would have this sort of outcome. Why does the non-corporeal, all powerful, eternal Mubu require the murder of a lowly goat in order to make plants grow?
#3) Control group
You don't test the plausibility of a "magical" event by performing a slightly different "magical" event and seeing if you get similar results.
You test the plausibility of a magical event by NOT performing it and seeing if you get the same results.
You need two fields next to each other and growing the same crops. Sacrifice a goat for one field and leave the other one alone. THEN evaluate the effect.
#4) Quantifying the results.
"Increase in yield" is not a specific definition upon which to assume the presence of and interaction with a "magical" being.
If the difference in yield from one field to the next is 5% or less, that can be adequately explained by noise in computation, differences in soil, drainage, shade, wind direction, harvesting technique, harvesting time, etc etc etc.
In order to demonstrate magical agency the difference in yield between the two fields needs to be UNQUESTIONABLY substantial.
For example: If you murder a goat in this field, it yields 500% MORE crops than in the field right next door.
#5) Demonstrable change in production
Not just an increased yield. If we are talking about an all powerful deity using magical powers, we want to see that mechanism demonstrated in ways which can not be explained through normal growth processes.
If you plant field A and B on the same day, then sacrifice a goat in field A, field A should be ready to harvest 15 minutes later. The plants should magically burst from the ground and ripen at a rate unseen and unexplainable through any means apart from magic.
Having plants grow at the same pace as the control field is insufficient to demonstrate supernatural agency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Jon, posted 10-12-2010 1:56 PM Jon 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