Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Indeed. I couldn't agree more.But the terminological problem remains. And it is not one of my choosing.Unless disproven the existence of god remains a "possibility" (in the unfalsified sense) does it not?The fact that the term "possibility" refers both to that which is positively evidenced as being something worthy of being considered possible Vs something that has no basis for belief at all other than it's status of being unfalsified is the problem here.Agnostics and theists will innately conflate the two. Atheists will see the difference. I honestly believe that RAZD (for example) does not see any evidential difference between the possible existence of alien life and the possible existence of gods. Or the discovery of the coalacanth against all expectation and scepticism towards the existence of gods. You, I, Oni etc. can see the madness of this. RAZD just thinks we are being subjectively biased. I believe his genuineness despite any other differences. But he is wrong because he is conflating two very different versions of "possible"The "possibility" issue is a a terminological problem that infests the whole of EvC debate.How do we solve it?I don't know.

This has nothing to do with ravens.On what basis do you confidently conclude that gravity won't be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after responding to this post.My answer is obvious. The consistency of natural law and the deep unlikelihood of any entirely unevidenced supernatural interference.But as someone that believes in miracles you cannot make that claim.So on what basis do you reject this possibility as "unlikley"?Be specific.

What point?I will answer any point made explicitly to me.And how is asking you "On what basis do you confidently conclude that gravity won't be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after responding to this post." NOT specifically challenging your claims of non-inductivist thinking?Without a degree of inductivism you cannot be confident of anything at all.Can you?

God admittedly means many thing to many people.Buz's God for example has been pretty much refuted because his version of God makes claims about the real world that have been falsified.But the whole god as the creator of the physical universe or the natural laws that govern it - That has not been "falsified". As such.Yes you can argue it is unknowable. Yes you can say it is as likely to actually exist as the celestial cows whose farts created the universe. But it is not "meaningless" or "nothing". in the sense you seem to be suggesting. Nor does the word "superhero".The fact that an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of imaginary, but very specific in their own right, concepts exists doesn't make the umbrella term itself meaningless.Spider-man is a superhero. So are Superman and Wolverine. "Superhero" is not a meaningless term because no such things exist. Nor is it meaningless because it is non-specific about what a superhero is. We have an umbrella definition. Thor is a god. Yahweh is a god. Zeus is a god. RAZD's universe creating deity who plays no further part in the development of reality is a god.What is possible and what is not? Well we enter the "evidenced possibility" Vs "unevidenced possibility" realm again.Some gods are certainly more falsified than others. Other than that all we can say is that they are all equally baseless propositions and that the likelihood of the actual existence of any such supernatural entity is deeply improbable.To say the least.

Again I agree. But the likes of RAZD and Bluejay will insist that the existence of the supernatural is "possible". Fine. But when confronting those who preach the gospel of agnosticism things are not as simple as that.They are asking how anyone can legitimately be atheistic towards something that is "possible".How do you deal with that?You have no choice but to distinguish between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities as far as I can see (which is what I end up attempting to do)Or come up with other terminological wizardry to the same effect.

I don't think your "inductive probability" argument has anything to do with anything I am saying. But I might be wrong. Let's find out based on a prediction derived from the conclusion I am making.If I conclude that supernatural agents will not override gravitational effects 30 seconds after you respond to this post is that an argument derived from inductive probability?On what legitimate basis do you think I can make that conclusion? Or are you agnostic to that proposition?Because my estimation of the unlikelihood of the existence of the supernatural is made on the same basis as the conclusion that supernatural entities will probably not override gravity 30 seconds after your response.Can you not see that?

If something is imperceptible that means that it is unknowable. Possibly they are. But that is another thread. Dark energy is not a baseless proposition. Asking and seeking to investigate what may constitute dark matter or be the form/cause of dark energy is not the same as the baseless dead end proposition that "somethingsupernaturaldidit" as an answer to anything. Well that has been my position from the beginning of this thread with regard to the actual existence of the supernatural as the cause of anything.Including the cause of human conceptions of the supernatural.

I still don't see how you can claim that the term "god" is meaningless just because there are multiple god concepts in existence. Exactly as do individual god concepts. The fact that believers think any of their nonsense is real is beside the point. Being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing. That depends on the particular god cited. The more intelligent the theist the more they resort to cloaking the god concepts they cite in increasingly sophisticated ambiguity. Especially in the face of scientific understanding. How do you think the concept of deism came about? Because individual concepts of gods are very specific. Thor is a specific god concept as is Zeus, Yahew et al. But they are all gods.No different to spider-man, superman, wolverine as individual examples of superheros. "God" is just an umbrella term for such concepts. No different to "superhero" as the umbrella noun for individual superhero concepts. Why do you think the existence of multiple god concepts makes the term "god" meaningless?The term "god" is generally used to refer to a powerful supernatural conscious being who holds dominion over some aspect of reality. Whether it be an aspect of nature (e.g. fire, weather, fertility, universe creation etc.) or some aspect of some supernatural realm (the afterlife or the godly realm itself e.g. Valhalla or Olympus or wherever). In the case of monotheistic religions one being is responsible for (almost) everything and gets called "God". In polytheistic religions there can be numerous gods each responsible for different things. Sufficiently advanced aliens might be mistaken for gods but unless they are supernatural (i.e. neither derived from nor limited by natural law) they aren't gods by any definition I have ever seen. Who points to the Sun and says "That is god"? Who are you talking about?Apollo was the Sun god of the Greeks. Ra the Egyptians. Sol the Vikings. Surya the Hindus etc. etc. etc.Point at the Sun and ask "what is that" and all of these mythologies will tell you that it is the Sun (in their own language - obviously). And then they will expand on that by saying it is Apollo driving his flaming chariot across the sky. Or whatever.Specific concepts Oni. All gods. But multiple god concepts no more makes the term "god" meaningless than the existence of multiple superhero concepts makes the term "superhero" meaningles. Well you can have a god of anything. So what?The term "god" is still being used to refer to a powerful supernatural conscious being who holds dominion over some aspect of nature.We call these concepts "gods". That isn't meaningless. So are superheros.You know full well I am not gonna disagree with that. But being wrong about the existence of gods is not the same as the term being "meaningless".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So as far as you are concerned it is illogical and evidentially invalid to conclude that gravity is unlikley to be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after you respond to this post. So you are totally agnostic to the notion that gravity will be supernaturally suspended 30 seconds after you respond to this post but utterly confident that gravity will continue as per usual 30 seconds after you respond to this post.Can you not see a problem here CS?

Well I cannot argue with any of that. Points well made.I just wish it were as easy in practise as you make it sound.Because you only have to read this thread to see that a large number of people here just take it as read that anything designed to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable is deserving of utter agnosticism of the sort that says we can make no statement of belief either way. And any argument to the contrary is treated as obviously extreme in some sense.I think it ultimately comes down to the difference between those that take each proposition and decide how knowable or unknowable it is based on it's details, and those who simply ask "on what basis is this proposition even to be considered"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You - like every other supernaturalist - are obsessed with disproof.The reason that I know to all practical intents and purposes that Thor isn't causing thunder and lightning as the vikings once believed is because I know that static electricity is resonsible for this phenomenon.I mean for heavens sake do you really think that the Sun coarsing across the sky every day is due to Apollo riding his falming chariot right on cue? By demonstrating that evidenced naturalistic explanations are able to predict and increase understanding in a way that supernaturalistic nonsense has never once succeeded in doing.

If the supernatural concept under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

At the time of writing the following proposition is as unevidenced and unfalsified as any other supernatural claim. Gravity will be supernaturally suspended this time next month.I say this is deeply deeply improbable. I say that this is a rational, evidenced and wholly logical conclusion. I would put myself as a 6 on the Dawkins scale regarding this proposition.What do you say? Because your last post was complete confused gibberish and suggests that your answer to this question is both "I don't know" whilst also saying "of course not".

If the supernatural concept under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

The specifics of any given god concept can be as ambiguous or specific as one chooses.But that is no different from the difference between a specific superhero concept (e.g. superman with all his related mythology) and ambiguously claiming that an undefined superhero with undefined abilities exists somewhere undefined. Humans have a long history of erroneously citing gods as the causal agents of observed phenomenon. We both agree on this. But that doesn't make the term "god"meaningless.If I went back in time with a range of technological gizmos (a lighter, a gun, a digital camera etc. etc. etc.) I might well be mistaken for a god. But those who mistook me for a god would simply be wrong. I am not a god. No matter what anyone believes.Have you ever seen the "Life of Brian"? Well if that is your point I agree with it entirely. Gods are human inventions.But I remain baffled as to why you think that erroneously attributing things to gods or the fact that they are fictional entities makes the term "god" itself meaningless.