Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Have you read this thread at all? Have you seen my argument with Oni? Nobody, least of all I, is denying possibilities.Once again I supply my most used quote:Betrand Russel writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

Do you think there is a supernatural causes for apples falling from trees?Do some things happen by themselves or is supernatural involvement required for everything?

Well precisely. So has not the concept of supernatural Thor been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?

I don't. If supernaturalistic hypotheses result in verifiable predictions I am all ears.Can you name one such verified prediction? Can you falsify the existence of green fairies? If not how is the existence of whatever supernatural entity you are advocating as sensible or valid (please specify!!) evidentially different from these "green fairies"?

Why not? Because all the evidence suggest that this concept is nothing more than something pulled out of your arse? Yeah but you can't prove it isn't green fairies. So your conclusion is illogical, heuristic, illegitimate, statistically invalid and unworthy of any confidence. According to the supernaturalists who preach the gospel of agnosticism taking part in this thread. Any claim that the supernatural can have an observable effect on physical reality is able to be investigated scientifically.Which part of that do you actually disagree with?

Well indeed! But tell that to Bluejay, CS and RAZD who continue to cite the supernatural hypothesis as a valid explanation for the observable phenomenon of human belief in the supernatural.

Yes. It has failed.To ever explain anything.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If this entity you cite is utterly imperceptible how can any concept of it be anything other than the product of your internal mind?Please explain.

Well if it is "unknowable" how can the concept of it it be derived from anything other than human imagination?Any correlation between that which can be humanly imagined and that which might actually exist being "improbable" at best.

My point here is not about gravity or it's explanation. This is about prediction and confidence. And the consequences of your position on our ability to confidently predict in the face of supernatural possibilities. A falling pen is just an easily tested prediction. The pen hasn't done anything yet. I am asking you to predict it's behaviour. I am standing in an office in London so you can forget tornados and electromagnets. I ask that you actually consider the scenario below and directly answer the question put to you on the basis of that scenario.POSITED SCENARIO
The universe was supernaturally created fully formed, including our memories, two nano-seconds ago. It was created in such a way that things will behave very differently from the universe we falsely think we experienced. Natural laws as we know them do not apply.I am standing here holding my pen. I am going to let go of it. Question: Can I confidently dismiss the above scenario (unfalsified as it is) prior to dropping my pen? Can I confidently expect my pen (and indeed everything else) to function exactly as known natural laws would dictate because this scenario can be dismissed as deeply improbable. Straggler’s Answer: Of course I can confidently dismiss the above scenario. Of course I can be utterly confident that my pen will simply fall to the floor under gravity. Because unlike those who preach the gospel of agnosticism I am not fixated on what it is that any given proposition says and how this itself affects what we can conclude about it. I do not concern myself with how cleverly unfalsifiable supernatural claims can be designed to be. Instead I simply ask on what basis the proposition is being put forwards in the first place. The supernatural scenario above is, just as is the case with ALL supernatural claims, completely baseless. It is a proposition made with no supporting evidence or even reason for consideration. We have no reason to even think that a scenario such as the above is even possible. Which means, based on the wealth of evidence that humans are willing and able to invent such concepts, the entire notion is all but certainly nothing more than the product of human imagination.So - Yes we can be completely confident that dropped pens will simply fall to the floor as expected. Bluejay's Answer: If you cannot confidently dismiss the supernatural scenario stated above without contradicting everything you have said about confidence being derived from statistically comparing naturalistic alternatives then you really have no position at all.Because unless you can confidently dismiss the supernatural scenario presented above your position as currently stated doesn't even allow confidence in the predicted behaviour of a dropped pen. OK. But that necessitates that you confidently dismiss the supernatural possibility detailed above. And that contradicts everything you have said about confidence, comparison and our ability to say anything about supernatural possibilities.Are you starting to see the problem with your position yet?

Your entire argument makes it impossible to confidently rule out supernatural interference at any point in time. Past, present or future. Supernatural possibility — Thirty seconds after you (or anyone else) responds to this message gravity will be supernaturally suspended.By the terms of your argument confidence can only ever be derived from comparative analysis of naturalistic theories. By the terms of your argument we are simply unable to comment on supernatural possibilities such as the one above. By the terms of your argument we must thus remain entirely agnostic about ALL supernatural possibilities. Including those pertaining to future interference. Please note that the above supernatural possibility is, at the time of writing (and of you or anyone else replying), just as unevidenced and unfalsified as any other supernatural claim.So are you confident that gravity will NOT be suspended thirty seconds after you reply to this message? If so on what basis is this confidence derived?You cannot answer this question. By the terms of your argument we cannot confidently predict anything that relies on the consistency of natural law. This should cause you to seriously reconsider your position. Or to live in a permanent state of perplexity that the world doesn't just do random things at the behest of unfalsifiably interfering supernatural agents. By the terms of your own argument it has everything to do with confidence. Or more precisely lack of it.Everytime we expect the world to function as per natural laws we implicitly rule out a whole host of supernatural possibilities. Possibilities that your arguments insist we must be agnostic about.Go figure.

You are not dead so evidently the new universe allows you to exist whatever it's laws or lack of them may be. It is similar enough to allow your current existence but not similar enough for pens to do what we expect of them when dropped. The litmus test will be my dropped pen.The fact that natural laws as we know them don't apply universally and consistently is radical enough. Stop being evasive. Answer the question as put.Predict what the pen will do and don't worry about your own existence for now as it is self evidently possible from the very fact that you are considering the question.

Was the spelling of those you quote really so atrocious?And do you really think this provides a reasoned argument that rebuts the fact that the supernatural, as you are defining it to be (i.e. "unknowable"), is imperceptible and thus necessarily a humanly imagined phenomenon?If something is imperceptible how can the actuality of any conception of it be anything other than mere chance?And what are the odds of us accurately imagining some aspect of imperceptible reality?"Unlikely" at best I would say.Which part of this (silly quotes aside) do you actually disagree with?

So now you have retreated your dancing angels from being the cause of gravitational effects to being the cause of space-time curvature which is itself the cause of gravitational effects.Is that correct?Because that is not where you started.Do you consider the somethingsupernaturalofthegapsdidit argument to be a valid argument? Thirty seconds after you reply to this message all gravitational effects will be supernaturally suspended.If you are confident that this unfalsified and unevidenced possibility is unlikely to be correct please state for the record your basis for making this conclusion.This is NOT a rhetorical question. Girlfriends being crabby in any fucking circumstance is hardly an unevidenced possibility now is it?On what similarly factual basis do you you consider dancing angels or indeed the existence of any other supernatural entity to be even possible?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Evasive of what?Ask me any question and I will give you a full answer. All I ask from you is the same courtesy.Thirty seconds after you reply to this message all gravitational effects will be supernaturally suspended.If you are confident that this unfalsified and unevidenced supernatural possibility is unlikely to be correct please state for the record your basis for making this conclusion.This is NOT a rhetorical question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.