I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

You said that, "belief should only come in when you do not need to make any more adjustments." I'm saying that belief comes when we can not make any more adjustments. But we haven't stopped verifying the premises; we've run out of premises. The lights keep going on and off and we presume that something is causing it but we have tested every premise we can think of and they all have failed. You can call "supernatural" a premise if you like but it is not one that can be tested.

Of course it's not science, it's a sodding miracle!Science has packed it's bags and gone home, thrown its theodolite, measuring stick and set square into the bin and joined the queues at the synagogue.

You, like Tangle, are simply hopping around as though there were flies in your crotch.Until you can address the points put to you, there's no reason to continue batting off the items on your endless lists of irrelevant crap.

The science you practice, then, is nothing but a joke.

Instead of making pointless comments like this, perhaps you could say why you think it's possible, scientifically, for a decapitated man to walk around for a month.What do you think science doesn't yet know about the physiology of the human being that makes you think it possible?If this example isn't certain enough for you, I've now cremated our now month dead decapitated man and I have him in a shoebox in front of me. I've said a few mystical words and SHASAM! he pops back into life fully formed, risen from the ashes fully headed!Is that a miracle or is it purely natural?

The issue is about evidence of the supernatural.If we are not talking about scientific evidence then why the fuck are you posting such crap?If you just believe it is impossible for such things to happen then that's fine, but if it happens then folk have claimed that it should be possible to scientifically examine the evidence.If science has left the building, then why are you even wasting my time?

Correct Who said it's not about scientific evidence? I have said several times that I do not believe the supernatural exists. The fact that we have no evidence for it is why we have to resort to speaking hypothetically.I have also said more than once that science has examined our hypothetical situation and found it inexpliccable. Not, unexplained and not something to hope one day to have the science to explain but beyond explanation. This is because we know enough about the science to know that what has just happened isn't possible by non-supernatural means. You're not getting this are you? You're still wrapped up in language.Science has examined the phenomenon, because the effect is real, but the causal mechanism is supernatural which can't be examined. It won't stop science trying to work it out of course, but if it's a true miracle - and how could the resurrection of a cremated decapitated man be anything else? - then science is pretty damn useless except to declare it to be beyond science.

Your only point was that the definition of 'natural' when discussing science should be the definition that reduces down to "occurs in this universe."That's what I addressed.But it's okay, if you have another point you'd like me to address all you have to do is specify it.Again, insisting that the word "natural" must be defined as "occurs in the universe" when discussing these questions is like insisting a player in the NHL must be defined as a man when discussing whether or not women should play.That's not the issue.The issue is what if things were different?What if the laws of nature were broken all the time, everyday?
Then, obviously, we would not have a philosophy of science idea that includes "the laws of nature" not being broken.There wouldn't be any "laws of nature" because nothing would be consistent.There would be the "laws of leaving stuff alone, with no intervention from intelligent beings" (our current laws of nature) and "the way things happen whenever someone decides to intervene and do whatever they want" (what we would call 'magic').In a world where this is going on... it's perfectly reasonable to call the first of those things "natural" and the second one "supernatural" as that's what the words mean today anyway.The point is, if things were different as described by the hypothetical situations being put forward... then the definition of "natural" meaning "occurs in the universe" wouldn't exist at all. And it no longer makes sense to insist on this definition.Just like if women actually did play in the NHL... then all NHL players wouldn't be men. And it would no longer make sense to insist on that definition.The definition you're sticking to only makes sense if you refuse to consider the implications of the discussion.
If you refuse to consider the implications of the discussion... why are you participating in the discussion?Not wanting to discuss these things can make sense on it's own.
But not wanting to discuss these things, but continuing to insist that they must be discussed your way? Every post you make is a confusing oxymoron.

So there really is no difference between you a UG. How utterly sad.

No not much, but Ug and I both have the intellect and knowledge to know that if we remove the head from a mammoth's shoulders it never gets up again - in no circumstances, ever.Now, what's your excuse for thinking otherwise?

Too funny. Just like Ug had the intellect to know that fire could not just fall from the skies?

No not just like that, but never mind you're boring me to death. I'm off to bang my head against something less dense.See you in the next thread.

But what do we actually test? We don’t test the natural. We test a hypothesis. More specifically - We test the predictions of a hypothesis.Ditto for the supernatural. We don't test "the supernatural". We test the predictions of the hypothesis in question.Which part of this is confusing you?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. You are conflating a scientific explanation with objective empirical evidence that something exists.In my scenario we have objective empirical evidence of the supernatural hypothesis in question (i.e. GOD imbuing the devout with miraculous healing powers). We have predictable testable cause and effect.But that doesn't mean the healing powers in question have a scientific explanation or that GOD has now transformed into "natural" somehow.Why do supermnatural things have to be random rather than predictable? Who says so? That seems contradictory.

All knowledge, most definitley scientific knowlegde, is both tenative and fallible.Whether pertaining to the past present or future. Can you know the past?Do you know that the world wasn't created 5 seconds ago fully formed and inclusive of all our memories? Or do you believe that?Can you know the present?Are you dreaming? Do you know you aren't? Or do you believe that you aren't?Your use of the term "know" imposes unachievable restrictions of certainty that are entirely pointless.We can know rather than believe when the next eclipse will occur in the same way that we can know rather than believe that evolution occurred. Past or future has little bearing here.We know lots of things that might be wrong. FallibilismThis is a basic tenet of scientific investigation.