Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 226 of 549 (578429)
09-01-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Bikerman
09-01-2010 6:05 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Bikey writes:
Kid was a natural - as soon as I explained light clocks he got it - not many do.
So what is your background?
Physics educated? Physics profesional even? Or an interested amateur?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Bikerman, posted 09-01-2010 6:05 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Bikerman, posted 09-01-2010 8:45 PM Straggler has replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 227 of 549 (578498)
09-01-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Straggler
09-01-2010 6:31 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Only did A level and 1st year undergrad engineering maths and physics. Degree in computer systems - a teaching degree not a 'proper one' :-)
I only got interested in physics in my 30s. I built a web site for a physicist and the payment was her time teaching me. I've done another similar deal since with a chap who is a particle physicist but I'm finding the maths harder and harder to get to the next step. I got tensors after a while, and manage Hamiltonians/Lagrangians by memory and brute force rather than elegance and understanding. When we start getting into lie groups then I hit a wall...
So I suppose very amateur would be the best description, but with a couple of good teachers who've given me the basics of Relativity and an outline of quantum physics where I can at least follow some of the maths, if not getting down and dirty with it....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2010 6:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 2:31 PM Bikerman has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 228 of 549 (578763)
09-02-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Bikerman
09-01-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Biker writes:
Degree in computer systems - a teaching degree not a 'proper one' :-)
I was once a physics teacher for my sins......
Biker writes:
Only did A level.....
"A level" - I have just realised you are a fellow Brit. No wonder you seem so comparatively eloquent and annoyingly knowledgeable

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Bikerman, posted 09-01-2010 8:45 PM Bikerman has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 229 of 549 (578768)
09-02-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
08-06-2010 12:30 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Caf writes:
Before we can decide if all supernatural explanations have failed, we have to have some clear definition of what you mean as supernatural.
Straggler writes:
That which is inherently immune from material investigation of any sort?
The inmaterial is inherently immune from investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 12:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 2:57 PM 1.61803 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 230 of 549 (578769)
09-02-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by 1.61803
09-02-2010 2:53 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
The inmaterial is inherently immune from investigation.
Not if it is being proclaimed as the cause of natural phenomenon. As is the premise of this thread.
Read the OP. Then get back to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by 1.61803, posted 09-02-2010 2:53 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by 1.61803, posted 09-02-2010 3:41 PM Straggler has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 231 of 549 (578782)
09-02-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Straggler
09-02-2010 2:57 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
The problem is the OP. As alluded to seems circular. If one states that anything that occurs in the universe is by definition natural, then adding "super-natural" seems silly to me.
If I say god is a natural part of the universe. That would defeat the premise that god is "apart" from the universe.
So to get around that one can conjure a god that prevades the universe and is also a intrinsic part of it. Hence super natural.
Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god.
Which of course brings us full circle eh?
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 2:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 5:23 PM 1.61803 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 232 of 549 (578812)
09-02-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by 1.61803
09-02-2010 3:41 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
The problem is the OP. As alluded to seems circular. If one states that anything that occurs in the universe is by definition natural, then adding "super-natural" seems silly to me.
Then you will be delighted to know that I have NOT defined things in this way.
Numbers writes:
If I say god is a natural part of the universe. That would defeat the premise that god is "apart" from the universe.
If you say god is inherently immune from material detection because he/it is neither derived from nor subject to physically natural laws then I will be happy to show you why you are almost certainly wrong.
Numbers writes:
Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god.
Then I call "bullshit".
Numbers writes:
Which of course brings us full circle eh?
Like anyone who claims to be a man of many corners in the circle of life I dispute your pseudo-intellectualistic theistic drivel as blatant bollocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by 1.61803, posted 09-02-2010 3:41 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 1:42 PM Straggler has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 233 of 549 (580064)
09-07-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Straggler
09-02-2010 5:23 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Hello Strag!
Staggler writes:
If you say god is inherently immune from material detection because he/it is neither derived from nor subject to physically natural laws then I will be happy to show you why you are almost certainly wrong.
First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?
quote:
Phi writes:Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god.
Straggler writes:
Then I call "bullshit".
Sweet. But I am pretty sure you call that alot so it seems empty.
Straggler writes:
Like anyone who claims to be a man of many corners in the circle of life I dispute your pseudo-intellectualistic theistic drivel as blatant bollocks.
I liked your "bullshit" retort better. Less wordy, just as crass.
Has the Supernatural Hypothesis failed? Yes. imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 5:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 1:51 PM 1.61803 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 234 of 549 (580065)
09-07-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by 1.61803
09-07-2010 1:42 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?
Well why do you think dark matter is even being postulated but for detectable physical effects?
Numbers writes:
imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence.
Why?
Given that humanity has ceaselessly put forward supernatural explanations for what have turned out to be wholly naturally explicable phenomenon what would you call it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 1:42 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 1:54 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 238 by nwr, posted 09-07-2010 5:36 PM Straggler has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 235 of 549 (580066)
09-07-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
09-07-2010 1:51 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Straggler writes:
Why?
Given that humanity has ceaselessly put forward supernatural explanations for what have turned out to be wholly naturally explicable phenomenon what would you call it?
[/qs] Can I quote you? "Bullshit"
Edited by 1.61803, : organization

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 1:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 2:05 PM 1.61803 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 236 of 549 (580069)
09-07-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by 1.61803
09-07-2010 1:54 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
"Bullshit"
As accurate as that broad description may be it is not unique to the question at hand. Could you be more specific?
Numbers writes:
imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence.
Why do those two words not belong in the same sentance?
I don't see how you can agree that the supernatural hypothesis has failed on the basis that science has repeatedly overturned claims of the supernatural whilst simultaneously asserting that science can say nothing about supernatural claims.
It doesn't add up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 1:54 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 5:20 PM Straggler has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 237 of 549 (580091)
09-07-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
09-07-2010 2:05 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Hypothesis is, if memory serves a fundamental tenant of scientific inquiry.
The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 2:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 8:15 AM 1.61803 has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 238 of 549 (580096)
09-07-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
09-07-2010 1:51 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Golden Ratio writes:
First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?
Straggler writes:
Well why do you think dark matter is even being postulated but for detectable physical effects?
It is being postulated as a possible way of explaining some otherwise unexplained observations. That does not mean that it has been detected.
In the past, science has postulated a luminiferous ether to account for observations. That was eventually abandoned. Before that, there was phlogiston.
I don't believe that there is anything within science that could be considered to be "the supernatural hypothesis." So I don't see that anything has failed.
Perhaps one could say that there is a supernatural hypothesis within religion. But in that case, it has surely been quite effective (from a religious point of view).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2010 1:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 8:05 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 239 of 549 (580211)
09-08-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by nwr
09-07-2010 5:36 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet.
And yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome.
Nwr on Dark Matter writes:
It is being postulated as a possible way of explaining some otherwise unexplained observations. That does not mean that it has been detected.
Which is exactly what I said. But if Dark Matter turns out not to not be the answer the Dark Matter hypothesis will have failed will it not?. Given that the supernatural has been repeatedly and erroneously postulated as a means of explaining otherwise unexplained phenomenon at previous points in time without a single instance of success it seems fair to say that the supernatural hypothesis has failed - No?
Nwr writes:
In the past, science has postulated a luminiferous ether to account for observations.
Indeed. And it would be fair to say that the luminous ether hypothesis had failed as well would it not?
Nwr writes:
That was eventually abandoned.
Yes. Very much like the supernatural hypothesis for any number of observed phenomenon.
Nwr writes:
I don't believe that there is anything within science that could be considered to be "the supernatural hypothesis." So I don't see that anything has failed.
Whether you want to call it "the supernatural hypothesis" or the claim that "somethingsupernaturaldidit" is irrelevant. The fact is that humanity has a long history of erroneously citing supernatural answers to seemingly inexplicable observed phenomenon. Anyone still suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for any observed phenomenon is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction. Not reason.
And the whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is little more than a method of appeasing apologists who are being forced to deal with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nwr, posted 09-07-2010 5:36 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 240 of 549 (580215)
09-08-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by 1.61803
09-07-2010 5:20 PM


Re: So what does supernatural mean?
Numbers writes:
Hypothesis is, if memory serves a fundamental tenant of scientific inquiry.
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon"
Wiki on hypothesis
Numbers writes:
The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet.
And yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome.
Your whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is nothing more than an apologists way of dealing with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by 1.61803, posted 09-07-2010 5:20 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by 1.61803, posted 09-08-2010 3:39 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024