Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

But aren't we correct in assuming that these multi-verses would still bound to their own natural laws? The same laws that sprung ours out of the colliding brains/strings/what have you. Their laws would be different, according to these leading theories mind you, but still laws and still natural in the same sense as our is, right?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

As I understand the multi-verse theory, it's because our laws can vary to an infinite degree that we postulate the reasonable hypothesis that an infinite amount of universes can spring up from these possible variations.So the laws in any universe that comes from a multi-verse system, would be a variation of the laws that govern ours. And I think that mathematically showing these possible variations, that can also describe conditions in another universe, is not only science, but the reason we came up with the theory to begin with.Science gave us the multi-verse hypothesis, not faith, belief, or any other methodology. In no way can I see this suggesting something supernatural, unless, of course, someone is not familiar with the the science behind it and uses the terms like "multi-verse" and "extra dimensions" in the science fiction sense. Well, since science came up with the hypothesis, and science only deals with the real and natural, there is no other way to view it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, Buz, you're right. You caught them. Now drink some hot tea and relax, it's time for your nap old man.- Oni

I guess this is where we strongly disagree. How can you come to the assumtion that something which is not derived from or subject to natural law can logically exists?Show me how you reached that conclusion...using what as evidence? Just saying it doesn't help me understand why you're saying that. So can you elaborate more, please... Where do you get your logic from if not some kind of evidence? I get that aspect of the common definition of the word, but it can then be ascribed to anything anyone feels violates natural law - as though something can do that.In the end, it ends up, whatever the phenomenon was, explained by natural means, historically, and the word shipped off to another question for which an answer is not yet conclusive.In this sense is how and why I see the word meaning nothing. I await the answers to the above questions before I accept that my premise is false. Just saying it is doesn't make it so.- Oni

I'm questioning why it is even suggested.For me to make a decision on whether or not it is plausible, I would have to know that there is even a question to answer. I did ask the question in the post, how can you come to a logical conclusion about something without some kind of evidence? How can something exist and not be subject to natural law, how can anyone even suggest that? I am saying that there are many things that can happen that can seem to fit the common use of the word, but in an of itself miraculous is nonsense. All it means is that you/they/somone didn't understand it.You seem to be suggesting that there is something unambiguously supernatural by definition, AND THEN, there is something called supernatural but ends up being natural.If this is your position and I've understood it properly, how do you make the distinction?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

My premise is simple, whatever exists exists. You have added to it that it has to be natural -vs- supernatural. This is why I said natural is a given, you know of nothing else other than existence, reality and the natural order.My problem continues to focus on the word supernatural, I'll get to that next. Then you're logic if faulty, or you have placed too much confidence in it.It is completely contratictory to claim that something can both exist but is not derived from nor subject to natural law. To exist is to be subject to and derived from natural law - if not, then you have now redefined the use of the word "exist."Unless, you happen to have another example of "exist" that I am not aware of.What evidence are you using to support the notion that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law? Because frankly, it defies logic. If your only definition, or your best definition, of supernatural is "things that exist but are not subject to or derived from natural law" then your use of the word is ambiguous and can fit any gap in human knowledge, not based on any sort of evidence, and logically wrong, as I have shown above. Agreed. But there are limits. Here is where you are wrong. My reason is written above.Existence = natural law. It cannot logically be anything else.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Without any context, sure, it's inarguable. I accept that the existence of Christ is possible. But to attatch qualities such as miraculous, you would first have to explain what a miracle is. Show proof of one. There would need to be a consensus on what miracles actually were. Since there is none, the word remains ambiguous. You could have said he had "magical powers" or "supernatural energies," and it would have been the same thing, nonsense.You have to define terms and words, explain what they are, they can just be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. It's similar to our discusion a while back with Linda Lou about telepathy. How can something both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law? The very word existence means it is derived from and subject to natural law - that's what existence is.Thus a premise that maintains that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived from natural law is nonsensical. Mom did say I was going to achieve great things. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

But that is not what I said, I have declaired nothing impossible. I maintain that the word supernatural basically describes nothing, it is meaningless untill someone gives it a meaning or a function - such as the cause of an eclipse or volcanic eruption.Same as the word god, it can literally mean and represent anything you want. If it can be everything and anything, then it really describes nothing. This, like supernatural, are gap filling words. They are place holders until the phenomenon is explained, or, realized to not have taken place.YOU brought up logic and used it as your means to justify the possibility of something beyond a natural existence. But I challenge that very logic, the one that can, somehow, assume realms beyond the only experienced reality in which we find ourselves. Because it seems illogical to to do so. All I have challenged is their use of the word supernatural and god, as nothing more than place fillers. This, by the way, is not only my position, but that of many philosophers that are mentioned here on EvC quite often. If you like, I could provide quotes from them saying this very thing.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I believe I said, to think that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived form natural law was illogical. The premise itself is contradictory by the very definition of what it means to exist. In reality? No. Reality has parameters that must be met. To exist in reality means, to be derived from and subject to natural law.Outside of reality? That is nonsensical...However, you can verbally express yourself using common terms like supernatural, miracle, god, etc., to formulate all the concepts you want. In the world of fiction anything is possible. If it goes against logic, and has no supporting evidence, then how does it remain possible? What is the basis for the very concept? How did we arrive at such an idea that something can exist in reality and not be subject to or derived from natural law? How does someone postulate an outside of reality? Not in it's verbal usage but as applied to reality. In that sense it is meaningless. I only ask because maybe I'm not doing a good job at getting the point across and someone like Dennett or Sam Harris explaining it will do a much better job than me.They suggest, as I am doing here, that words like supernatural and god are lingustic place fillers until science catches up. As is witnessed with past phenomena like eclipses and volcanic eruptions.To say that it is possible for these phenomena to be inherently unknowable by natural means, and are not derived from or subject to natural law, is to equally say that it is impossible for science to ever know, understand, or be able to explain it. Something I'm sure you would not agree with.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It's not my definition, it is the only definiton we have. And, it is not absoute, it is held tentatively until evidence is shown otherwise. No, I have shown how the Christian concept of Christ is flawed as it violates the laws of nature and reality. Yes, yes I do. And it would be awesome if it was, that would lead to a whole new side of science that would be amazing to discover. And that's why it is a logical fallacy to assume this. Nothing is certain, that I can agree with. But imagining other alternatives, when not one single piece of evidence exists for it, and it is logically fallacious, doesn't make the imagined alternative a possibility.What we can say for certain is that natural explanations have been given for many, if not all, known phenomena. Christ was not a phenomenon, he is a character in a story. So was Muhammed, Zeus, and the rest of the gods, and what they were said to have willed. So no explanation, ntaural or otherwise, is needed for these guys. What I am calling meaningless and "nothing" is the past applications of the word supernatural, as the cause of an eclipse or an eruption. In those cases, it has ended up refering to nothing at all, and was meaningless because a natural cause eventually explained each of these.To say that Christ now fits this ambiguous definition of supernatural, and that it has meaning in that sense, is to ignore the history of that word and to fall into the gaps argument.- Oni

There really isn't, that's why I've refrained from debating this as of late. Exception was made for you because I know it won't go on for every and we'll just give up. Looks like we've sorta reached that point. That about sums it up. Unless one single shread of evidence can be used to support their contradictory beliefs, then all you're debating is their imagination. Not to drag this on, and I know you mention I could get the last word but, do you not see the difference between logically possible, within the limits of nature & anything goes as long as you can imagine it? The latter to me seems fun to entertain but void of any real philosophical meaning.- Oni

And that's where I base my position on; the difference between something imagined and something actually being possible based on evidence or logic. If not, then your argument boils down to, anything is possible. And "anything" is not possible, somethings are just not possible. Not so. We can define reality - we do so and live under the assumtion that there are laws. You wouldn't jump off a building hoping today the laws of physics just happen to be suspended. Nor would you accept that someone can walk on water if someone told you that; you'd like tangible proof.I believe you'll agree so far...The problem we have is, what else is possible? And I would agree 100% that there are many things that are possible and not yet known. No argument from me on that.But what isn't possible is, a human being, through ONLY the use of their imagination and wishful thinking, happened to, by sheer coincidence and absolute fucking you-just-hit-the-lottery-ten-times-in-a-row luck, conceptualize a realm of reality not known to anyone else on the planet. Then, take that imaginative concept and ascribe it to phenomena that have taken place in reality - and we're supposed to consider that philosophically meaningful? At which point, I'm supposed to accept the possibility of it?I can't. And I can't see it as philosophically meaningful if all we're going by is a human's imagination. Boobies!- Oni

Hi Bluejay, hope your exams turn out well.Anyway, question: How are you using the word heuristic here? I'm having trouble following your point because of it - Is it as common sense, a rule of thumb, or something like that?If so, I'd have to disagree. It's not at all common sense that the natural world operates by deterministic rules, and it's not a rule of thumb in science either - As a result of experimentation, the natural world seems deterministic.In fact, Newton's laws of motion ended at a point where no know deterministic laws could be found, and thus even someone with the intelligence of Newton infered a designer. However, he was still doing science, yet he didn't have this basic heuristic that you mention.It can be argued now, though, that the theory of plantary motion has this basic heuristic, that the motion is deterministic. But you're picking and chosing when in history to apply this.There is a long list of great scientist, doing science, who had to infer a designer because no deterministic laws could be yeilded from their inquiries. So I'm wondering how you can say science has this basic heuristic principle?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

I'm guessing this was more a bump for Bluejay than me, even though I was mentioned.But just to clarify, as every debate leaves behind important key points when the dialogue takes off and others find their way in, and leads often to misrepresentations. Not exactly: ...And that as a consequesnce any notion of existence outside of natural law cannot be claimed as a possible or impossible concepts when likewise being claimed to be derived from experience - it is in that sense, unreal, imagined meaningless nonsense.Until some kind of empirical evidence is presented to support the concept of "existence outside of natural law is possible," it remains unreal, imagined meaningless nonsense. One cannot possibly come to know such a concept by experience only.- Oni

Yo Blue, So then we agree that such a basic heuristic was not found in the early days of science. So now the question is, when do you think this became a rule of thumb? This would suggest that there was a pre-existing rule of thumb in scientific thinking that was found after the shift away from dogmatic religion - either that or it became a rule of thumb as a result of experimentation.I would argue for the latter; I would say that the accumulation of data, aquired from scientific research, starting with Darwin (not really but lets arbitrarily pick him as the originator) - which gave a detailed theory of how life evolved without the need of a supernatural entity - ending with (but not really as it continues today) Einstein who showed us how the cosmos evolved without the need of a supernatural entity, has lead to the rule of thumb in todays science.Which do you favor? Or have I presented a false dichotomy and you have something else in mind?- Oni