Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 466 of 536 (617781)
05-31-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:02 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
So do you think that before it was physically understood the Sun was an actual supernatural phenomenon?
Or was it just wrongly attributed to supernatural causes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:02 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 467 of 536 (617791)
05-31-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Modulous
05-31-2011 7:37 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
1. supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ərəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
But just because the witnesses cannot or do not understand these things, does mean the supernatural is not the product of the human imagination. The human imagination takes input and adds bells and whistles. It is the bells and whistles we are talking about in this thread - not the input.
Supernatural falls under the same category as paranormal activity; in the definition being: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Talking to the dead is a source of psychics information [according to many physics]. They claim 'spirit guides' inform them.
We can’t prove it’s not true. We can't prove it's their imagination. Neither can we prove that it isn't. But the abilities they have beyond what we know to be natural are true enough, so how else do you explain it?
Is it your belief that all notions of 'God' and 'Spirit' and 'Soul' are simply the imaginations of a needy mankind? I believe you do. But evidence of faith healing exists. Why does faith healing work?
Perhaps the best evidence of supernatural 'God' is a universe of stuff with no explanation of how it could exist at all. Changing from ’form to form- for all eternity-without an explanation for the first cause.
I consider ‘existence’ a supernatural thing. I cannot explain how it is possible. Many don’t appear to see it that way. They accept [existing] is, then find a philosophy to exist within it [existence], and then live and die by their chosen philosophies. I find nothing wrong with any philosophy that’s chosen.
Everyone believes their own philosophy is the best. That is natural. But when we approach science, I consider science a philosophy of evidenced belief. And so you say more evidence supports that God and spirits and other supernatural phenomenon have no true acts to base the beliefs on. And I say there is more evidence to support water is heavier than air. However: science understands water is lighter than air. Science cannot explain or validate supernatural event claims. But neither has science been able to prove they are not real events. In fact, because of paranormal research it has been found the events themselves are real.
I stand by my position because it is greater evidenced there is more than imagination involved when it comes to supernatural events.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 7:37 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 5:41 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 468 of 536 (617794)
05-31-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Straggler
05-31-2011 11:08 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
So do you think that before it was physically understood the Sun was an actual supernatural phenomenon?
Or was it just wrongly attributed to supernatural causes?
It was correctly labeled supernatural until science understood it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 11:08 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 12:42 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 469 of 536 (617808)
05-31-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:47 AM


We Are All "Supernaturalists"
Tesla writes:
Straggler writes:
So do you think that before it was physically understood the Sun was an actual supernatural phenomenon? Or was it just wrongly attributed to supernatural causes?
It was correctly labeled supernatural until science understood it.
If "supernatural" simply refers to any phenomenon that is not yet scientifically understood then we are all avid believers in the existence of the "supernatural". Because we all (me, Mod, Panda etc.) wholly accept that there exist natural phenomena which are not yet explained by science.
By this definition we can all accurately be described as "supernaturalists". Which just goes to show how silly, self serving and pointless your use of the term "supernatural" really is.
Tesla writes:
Supernatural is a word ascribed to events unexplainable by science.
But the Sun (for example) is NOT and never was inherently "unexplainable by science".
Your entire argument is based on your conflation of "unexplainable" with "not yet explained".
That is where you are going wrong and why you are getting yourself into such a semantic twist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:47 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 470 of 536 (617823)
05-31-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Straggler
05-31-2011 12:42 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
But the Sun (for example) is NOT and never was inherently "unexplainable by science".
Your entire argument is based on your conflation of "unexplainable" with "not yet explained".
That is where you are going wrong and why you are getting yourself into such a semantic twist.
Define supernatural for me please.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 12:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 1:39 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 471 of 536 (617830)
05-31-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by tesla
05-31-2011 1:15 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
If you read this thread you will see that the definition of "supernatural" has been discussed at great and tedious length. You will also find that defining "supernatural" in the way that you have attempted to do results in all sorts of nonsense. Nonsense such as the inevitable conclusion that anyone who accepts that there exist natural phenomenon which are as yet unexplained by science qualifies by definition as a "supernaturalist". Conclusions such as 'Dark Matter' being a supernatural phenomenon. Conclusions such as the Sun once actually being a supernatural entity (but now not). Etc.
The bottom line is that any common definition of "supernatural" will suffice as long as you don't make the mistake of conflating that which science cannot currently explain with concepts which are defined as being inherently scientifically inexplicable. This is the conflation you have made and the root of your misapprehensions in this thread.
If you want the actual wording for a definition of "supernatural" I have used in this thread you can find it here: Message 114. But like I say - Pretty much any commonly found definition will suffice as long as you don't conflate "unexplained" with "unexplainable".
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:15 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 472 of 536 (617836)
05-31-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Straggler
05-31-2011 1:39 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
If you read this thread you will see that the definition of "supernatural" has been discussed at great and tedious length. You will also find that defining "supernatural" in the way that you have attempted to do results in all sorts of nonsense.
Why because I used the standard definition?
Do you honestly believe the capabilities of man ALWAYS included the ability to explain the sun?
You’re reaching.
You meant to say: all imagined supernatural events are figments of the imagination.
You instead said: All supernatural events are figments of the imagination.
Science has proven supernatural events are natural when technology and understanding reveal the way the universe works.
So: supernatural events are real, not yet understood, and explanations of the events are simply imagined reasoning’s for the behavior with no proof of the reasons.
The reasons are not the events. The events are true.
I.E. a man has an interaction with God. Did he? He believes he did. Can you prove it was his imagination? No. so what do you have proof of? Nothing. so how can you say it was the man’s imagination? Because that’s what you choose to believe. that’s all.
You have run this debate into the ground and have proven your theory is inadequate to the definition of supernatural which I have posted twice.
Furthermore: scientists explore supernatural phenomenon to the limitations of science. Now why would they do that if they didn't believe it was anything but the marvelous power of imagination? Because more than imagination is at play. no one knows what.
Let’s assume people accept your theory: all supernatural events are just imagination. Ok, now who is going to discover anything beyond the current abilities of science if they never even examine currently labeled 'supernatural' events? Answer: no one.
I have said my peace, and proven your theory wrong. You can choose to believe what you will, as you will. but I believe those who choose to believe your theory are just going to be closed minded atheist willing to endorse their own beliefs with a dogmatic stance no more, and no less, than any creationist, Christian, or otherwise stubborn ideology that you profess to be distasteful to science.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 1:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 2:12 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 473 of 536 (617845)
05-31-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by tesla
05-31-2011 1:55 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
Tesla writes:
Why because I used the standard definition?
Can you supply the source of this "standard definition"......?
Tesla writes:
Do you honestly believe the capabilities of man ALWAYS included the ability to explain the sun?
Of course not. But the fact that there exist things which are believed by humans to be supernatural at any given point in time is hardly the same as those things being genuinely supernatural is it? The Sun as a flaming chariot ridden by Apollo being an obvious case in point.
Tesla writes:
Science has proven supernatural events are natural when technology and understanding reveal the way the universe works.
WEll exactly!! - If they turn out to be natural then they weren't actually supernatural at all were they? So where, if not human imagination, did the idea that they were instead caused by mysterious beings magically manipulating reality in inexplicable ways come from?
Tesla writes:
You’re reaching.
Says the person who is arguing that the human imagination theory has been refuted by citing cases of humans imagining that supernatural causes are responsible for demonstrably natural phenomena............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 1:55 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:32 PM Straggler has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


(1)
Message 474 of 536 (617854)
05-31-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Straggler
05-31-2011 2:12 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
WEll exactly!! - If they turn out to be natural then they weren't actually supernatural at all were they? So where, if not human imagination, did the idea that they were instead caused by mysterious beings magically manipulating reality in inexplicable ways come from?
LMAO This belief is no more erroneous than string theory or the big bang theory which more than likely will proof to be just as ridiculous if science ever evolves far enough to understand cause of existing.
By your definitions it would appear all things not proven are figments of the imagination.
The truth is all our explanations fall short when they pass the limits of science. This does not mean there is not truth in them.
Perhaps the ideas and definitions of soul and spirit and ghosts and God will all be discovered to be true when mankind discovers enough via science. However, this does not mean that it is strictly imagination. The events are REAL. Its explanations that are lacking.
Your still saying: all interpretations of what we call supernatural are from the imagination. And I will agree with that. So is the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe, if were discussing actual proof.
However, it is still true the events the ideas are based on have been scientifically researched and found true to the standards of science, yet lacking any explanation other than what can be imagined.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2011 2:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Straggler, posted 06-01-2011 8:57 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 475 of 536 (617953)
05-31-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:43 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Supernatural falls under the same category as paranormal activity; in the definition being: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
And I've told you that we're using the word differently. You can find other definitions. Such as:
quote:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
You are arguing that the supernatural is really just natural things that are misunderstood. That's fine - but the theory is about the claim that supernatural things are really not just natural things that are misunderstood but SUPERnatural.
We both agree that so-called supernatural claims are actually just natural events that have been misunderstood. The theory predicts that the notion of spirit guides was invented in the minds of men and has no verified basis in reality.
Talking to the dead is a source of psychics information [according to many physics]. They claim 'spirit guides' inform them.
That seems like a supernatural claim. There is no evidence for spirit guides actually existing.
We can’t prove it’s not true.
I'm fairly sure I've stated twice already that I'm not claiming we can. Just that there is a theory that spirit guides are products of the imagination of the psychics that claim them as explanation for their perceived abilities.
Is it your belief that all notions of 'God' and 'Spirit' and 'Soul' are simply the imaginations of a needy mankind? I believe you do.
Not really a 'needy' mankind. A mankind with a brain that makes predictable mistakes in attribution of causality, agency etc.
But evidence of faith healing exists. Why does faith healing work?
Suggestion, misdirection and other tricks. Check out Derren Brown, he taught a complete newb how to do faith healing within a few weeks. He managed to convince members of the public that he was a genuine faith healer and he performed several miraculous healings that witnesses were amazed by.
. And so you say more evidence supports that God and spirits and other supernatural phenomenon have no true acts to base the beliefs on.
No. My position is that perfectly natural cognitive effects can explain religious experiences. You may check out my posts in Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)? for further clarification of my position on this subject.
However: science understands water is lighter than air
You realize this isn't true, right? I assume you are just getting carried away with your analogy.
I stand by my position because it is greater evidenced there is more than imagination involved when it comes to supernatural events.
And I agree. But only the imagination is verified as being involved in the formation of supernatural hypothesis as a means to explain those real events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:43 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 5:59 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 476 of 536 (617959)
05-31-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Modulous
05-31-2011 5:41 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I stand by my position because it is greater evidenced there is more than imagination involved when it comes to supernatural events.
And I agree. But only the imagination is verified as being involved in the formation of supernatural hypothesis as a means to explain those real events.
I notice you said "supernatural hypothesis".
Kind of funny wording but I can't disagree with this point.
Which also must be pointed out, all hypothesis are imaginations based on data we haven’t proven
A final point: the events are of course real, just beyond current abilities to understand.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 5:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 6:14 PM tesla has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 477 of 536 (617970)
05-31-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by tesla
05-31-2011 5:59 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Which also must be pointed out, all hypothesis are imaginations based on data we haven’t proven
Right. But some hypothesese rely on entities for which there is independent and converging lines of evidence to support their existence. The theory notes that there are a certain class of entities for which zero evidence has been found, but which are regularly imagined to be real. The theory posits that all these notions exist within the minds of people alone and are not reflected in reality and it can be falsified with such evidence as we have for horses or friction.
A final point: the events are of course real, just beyond current abilities to understand.
They may well be beyond your current abilities to understand. I believe they are somewhat understood, but we are continuously learning about the common mistakes/errors humans make and have to create ever more controlled environments to account for them. Under the most rigorously controlled environment psychic powers seem to vanish to the edges of statistical significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 5:59 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 478 of 536 (617978)
05-31-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Modulous
05-31-2011 6:14 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Right. But some hypothesese rely on entities for which there is independent and converging lines of evidence to support their existence.
And you think paranormal and supernatural phenomenon has zero evidence? There is tons of evidence, thousands of books and the fact a vast majority of the population of this planet believe in it. Scientifically nothing is proven. Even in science many theories are well beyond understanding and have theories based on data no one truly understands yet.
The only reason scientists don't do more research than is already being done in supernatural and paranormal events is because scientists have no idea where to start looking, or what question to ask.
UFO's real? Yes. Are they understood? No. and how can we go about researching an unidentified flying object? Are they there? Yes. But unidentified means we cannot explain it.
They may well be beyond your current abilities to understand. I believe they are somewhat understood, but we are continuously learning about the common mistakes/errors humans make and have to create ever more controlled environments to account for them. Under the most rigorously controlled environment psychic powers seem to vanish to the edges of statistical significance.
Which also has something to say about how controlled the experiments are may also be affecting the experiment. If you take a fish out of water it will die. But at least they are running experiments trying to explain the phenomenon and not just ignoring the fact they exist.
Edited by tesla, : typing errors

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 6:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 7:10 PM tesla has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 479 of 536 (617984)
05-31-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by tesla
05-31-2011 6:49 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
And you think paranormal and supernatural phenomenon has zero evidence?
I think that there zero evidence for the existence supernatural entities.
There is tons of evidence,
The only evidence I have seen consists of minor effects at the edge of statistical detection, poor or unverified experimental controls, possible memory errors and so on.
thousands of books and the fact a vast majority of the population of this planet believe in it.
And there are thousands of books debunking it, and a thousand books on Islam. I fail to see what relevance the beliefs of the majority has here.
Scientifically nothing is proven.
I believe I have stated three times now that this thread is about a theory not about proof and disproof.
Even in science many theories are well beyond understanding and have theories based on data no one truly understands yet.
Even if true, this provides no evidential support for the existence of supernatural entities.
I am not closed minded, I am not ruling them out absolutely. So you don't need to lecture me that we are forever learning new things about the world. I'm just saying that at this moment there is no evidence to support the existence of supernatural entities.
UFO's real? Yes.
Agreed.
Are they understood? No.
Some of them are later identified as Chinese Lanterns, helicopters, planets, clouds, street lamps, weather balloons, other terristrial aircraft...
None of them have been identified as being piloted by aliens. Nor have any verified accounts of them being the steeds of angels.
and how can we go about researching an unidentified flying object? Are they there? Yes. But unidentified means we cannot explain it.
No, it means it was not initially identified by the observer. But later investigations can identify what was seen. So far, no angels.
Which also has something to say about how controlled the experiments are may also be affecting the experiment.
Well that's exactly the point. It is an observable effect that researchers unconsciously bias the results if they are able.
But at least they are running experiments trying to explain the phenomenon and not just ignoring the fact they exist.
I agree the phenomenon exists, but I disagree that supernatural entities are responsible. I think human frailty is more likely the culprit. I have evidence for human frailty. If you propose a better explanation I expect to see the evidence to support it.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 8:22 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2011 12:00 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 480 of 536 (617993)
05-31-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Modulous
05-31-2011 7:10 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I agree the phenomenon exists, but I disagree that supernatural entities are responsible.
Then by your opinion there is nothing outside the realms of known physics.
That would mean we know everything there is to know about the universe.
You can believe what you wish. Evidence (i guess) is dependent upon belief. People ignore scientific evidence, and people ignore personal testimonies.
Believe what you will. I reject your theory.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 7:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 8:59 PM tesla 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