Inductive Atheism

No. A naturalistic explanation has been provided for an observed phenomenon. Just as with any other scientific explanation. The only known source of such concepts is human imagination full stop. You are talking yourself into riddles in some sort of silly effort to justify your position. If Jesus turns up, born of a virgin, son of God who is himself, capable of walking on water, turning water into wine etc. etc. etc.Are you saying that he is NOT supernatural simply because he exists? Likewise any other concrete example of a supernatural being. How is not knowing the source of something supporting of the claim that the source is supernatural?

Yes. Have you actually read the OP of this thread?Did you actually read Perdition's post? Do you really think it was a statement of agnosticism? Message 142Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Splitting hairs only makes the head more fuzzy.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

How would we know it were Jesus?

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

By virtue of him really doing the things that the concept we know as Jesus does. Returning as prophesied, raising the dead, inducing Armegeddon.... Surely you know the sort of thing?

Then I suggest you invest in some conditioner.Your point.........?

Okay, fair enough. But then what would that have to do with God? Your separation of concepts into such categories as the ones into which you've separated them is entirely arbitrary, relative to your own belief system, and completely irrelevant to whether some things can or cannot be investigated through scientific methodology. It serves only to pile more muck into the water rather than attempt to make things clearer.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

My bold. There's no a priori exclusion of supernatural explanations in science. For an historic example, in "On the origin of species...." Darwin tests his hypothesis against that of "the Creator" creating each individual species pretty much as they are now. In modern times, if someone reports phenomena that they claim indicates a ghost, a scientific investigation would include "it's a ghost" as one of the potential hypotheses to explain the phenomena described. When experiments are done to see if there's any indication that prayer works, supernatural beliefs are being investigated, and gods answering prayers is certainly not ruled out as a potential explanation of results.The view that science can only deal with the natural is parochial and political, and, in your country, has much to do with selling science to a still very religious public (twin non-overlapping magisteria stuff), and trying to take an easy (but false) route to keep creationism out of schools.I don't quite agree with all the detail of what he says, but here's the case for science testing supernatural worldviews put pretty well by an American neurologist in a peer reviewed paper. (PDF). Can Science Test Supernatural WorldviewsThe divide on this issue doesn't go along religious people v. non-religious people lines at all. If I find time, I'll start a thread on that paper, because the issue is central to much of what we discuss on EvC.

From Message 196It precludes the supernatural sources that would falsify the theory. Where "known" is defined as scientifically verified. Stay out of my mind! I was answering a direct question, ass. I'm saying that his ability to turn water into wine would either have a legitimate naturalistic explanation or be left as unknown to science. It isn't, nor is it being used that way.

---

From Message 197Yes. I also traced back through to the Great Debate thread to its source in the Exploration into Agnosticism thread where bluegenes aurgument originally came up as an answer to RAZD's question of 'Why not agnosticism?'.This OP seems to be a different argument with its own problems. Namely, that using naturalistic explanations against non-naturalistic sources is a fruitless endeavor. I think it is, like it says it is, an argument against belief. Specifically against the "consilience" as evidence of a supernatural being.But I'm not a mind reader like you are

I agree, however, all scientific answers are naturalistic explanations. Ya know what?.. I'm not religious. I glanced through it a bit, I'll be looking out for your thread.

So far, yes. That, at present, is true. But it's not because they have to be, it's merely because every time we find well supported explanations of phenomena, they turn out to be natural. Hence the rise of naturalism. It is itself based on observation and experience, not some arbitrary grand philosophical decision. We have developed the habit of looking for natural explanations because it works and has produced results.However, not all scientific hypothesis are natural. The one that Darwin was using to test against his own, for example.If many people could repeatedly observe English garden fairies here on the island, and film them in action, and they sometimes waved their wands and turned dandelions into daffodils, then our best explanation would be "magic", or supernatural. That's what the empirical evidence would suggest. But such things have never happened. Guess what? I don't have blue genes, either. Names can be misleading. Actually, it wasn't for you particularly that I mentioned that the division of opinion wasn't on religious lines. It's interesting. Alvin Plantinga, Protestant Christian philosopher at Notre Dame (surprisingly) is an example of someone with whom I'd disagree on many things, but with whom I agree on this point.If the supernatural exists and therefore effects reality, science cannot both study reality and ignore it.

Well yeah, but the explanations that aren't well supported fall by the wayside. Yup. It nothing particularly against the supernatural, its that the natural yields results. I don't find that, itself, to be much against the supernatural though. I doubt it... I think we'd look for a naturalistic explanation or be left with the answer not being known. I actually meant to be supporting what you were saying... As in, 'yeah, you're right, cause I'm not religious' You don't have to be religious to be Catholic I still consider myself Catholic... I'm also very apathetic. Never heard of 'em... but he does have a wikipedia page, thanks. Sure it could...If the "ghost detection equipment" interupts the apparition, itself, then all that studying is in ignorance. Although, I guess you could say that they aren't really studying it then.

quote:

---

The only scientifically known source of supernatural beings is the human imagination. If the source becomes scientifically known, then there is a natural explanation and it is not supernatural. If the source is non-natural, then it will not become scientifically known. So, the only sources that can become scientifically known cannot be supernatural beings. Therefore, we're left with the only other possible source which is the human imagination. If there was another source, and it became scientifically known, then it wouldn't be supernatural. If it was supernatural, then it wouldn't become scientifically known. So, the only source that can become scientifically known cannot be supernatural and we're left with the only other source which is imagination. But, if another source did become known... etc. etc.

---

Supernatural doesn't mean scientifically unknown. Supernatural means above nature, not non-natural. Originally it was used in a religious sense. Gods living in a higher realm (above the earth). Since 1799 it has also been associated with ghosts.Nature is the physical world/universe and everything in it that isn't made by mankind. IMO, whatever exists (physical or nonphysical) and is not created by mankind is part of the natural world whether we know about it or not.

quote:

---

If there was another source, and it became scientifically known, then it wouldn't be supernatural. If it was supernatural, then it wouldn't become scientifically known.

---

The source is not what is considered supernatural. Only the being. Until a supernatural being is found, we don't know if they would still be considered supernatural or not. Mankind changes word meanings to suit their purpose just as supernatural has changed over time. It can change again.If another source exists that wasn't created by mankind, then it is already part of the natural world.If a supernatural being exists that isn't created by mankind, then it is already part of the natural world.Human imagination can play with words till the cows come home. We change definitions and seemingly move gods out of the reach of reality.Right now, supernatural beings are created by mankind and aren't part of the natural world. The source is the human mind, which is part of the natural world.

What's the joy in playing the dictionary games? Certainly there are better things to discuss on this topic than meaningless word meanings...Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Indeed. Whether they're natural or supernatural. So we can reasonably discard both phlogiston and the evil spirits that cause disease. There's no known reason, if the supernatural is anything other than human invention, that some of the supernatural explanations once believed in shouldn't have turned out to be correct. Sure, we look for natural explanations. But there would come a point when supernatural would be the best explanation. If a character arrives in your town claiming to be a god, and he turns the entire water supply of the town into a fine Bordeaux while walking on the surface of a pond, and the water remains as wine for a month, giving scientists plenty of time to test it while the character is busy curing people of apparently incurable conditions and turning bad people into frogs, even the most hardened skeptics would have to take his word for it; that he's a god. We would be following the evidence.God of the gaps arguments aren't about not being able to explain an apparent supernatural being performing spectacular miracles. Rather, they go like: "We don't know the chemical processes that led to the first life form(s), therefore: God." They are obvious non sequiturs. "It" meaning reality? Exactly.