Peanut Gallery

I see RAZD wasted no time pulling out his Cognitive Bias canard. Honestly, I think it's become the equivalent of a Godwin, as it basically consists of going "ner na ner na ner! I don't have to listen to you 'cos your brain don't work". It's really unhelpful to actually having a useful discussion.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

The extraordinary tale of RAZD's spectacular inability to bring his ability to think clearly to threads about nonsense really has outdone itself this time

Surely this is nothing more than a statement of faith that the world is naturalistic in all its workings? Why does there have to be a natural explanation? Indeed, a world that permits the supernatural is also a world in which there are things which completely lack methodological explanations. That's pretty much the definition of supernatural. However, while we live in a world in which things are explicable, there's no a priori reason to think we must.

I would note that your satisfaction is not a requirement that reality is obliged to obey. It's not a place filler; it's the word for things that don't operate according to determinable, accessible rules. If magic/miracles were real, then they'd operate in a way that means that our only methodological explanation is "it's supernatural".

Indeed, a world with the supernatural in it is not a world that can be understood.

Well, that's a valid question. It pretty much echoes Hume's argument that there can never be convincing evidence for Miracles. It doesn't, however, speak to whether there actually can be supernatural things or not.And, personally, I think it would become obvious if there was supernatural stuff going on. Only in a universe where things actually have determinable, accessible rules. Ours appears to be such a universe but it doesn't have to be.

The tribesman is wrong. Because an eclipse isn't supernatural but if the eclipse was caused by an angry god covering the sun then it would be supernatural. What the tribesman, or Christian, thinks is supernatural is irrelevant.

Why do you think the tribesman's ignorance makes the blindest bit of difference? It's not supernatural. You know how eclipse happen. It's perfectly natural. The eclipse happens according to a set of natural laws and principles. The god doesn't. I really don't see what is hard about it?

So your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural, and is simply an objection that we can't know?

Then your objection in your previous post is irrelevant.There's a god. He doesn't follow any kind of rules or principles. It's not that we don't know them. He just doesn't.That's supernatural. That's what it means. It's not a place holder.

That's a stupid objection; because the entire notion of natural causes has only been recently developed. The notion of supernatural as we discuss it now is the only sensible way of looking at.By that method, you're completely wrong about the tribesman, he could call it supernatural but he'd be wrong. Now, try very, very hard and see if you can't imagine something which is actually supernatural. Note how it's a completely different concept than someone just being wrong about something natural. Are you just completely incapable of understanding the notion of a hypothetical?

Oh please!Now using words to mean what they mean is "moving the goalposts"? Seriously?Get off the wall, Humpty.

No, it doesn't. Because it's HYPOTHETICAL. Oh, for goodness sake. How many times? IT ISN'T YOUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF REALITYIn this HYPOTHETICAL example, THERE ACTUALLY IS A SUPERNATURAL. And yet you keep making objections that make no sense if you do. So either a) you're being deliberately awkward or b) you don't. Which is it? If it's a) we can give up on the conversation now.

I'm baffled. Does RAZD actually believe that his absurd suggestion that some supernatural entities aren't made up by humans actually holds any water? Is it simply a tactic to avoid getting on to any more serious debate, or does is he actually going somewhere useful with this exercise in absurdist theatre?

You seem confused. We're the ones that hold that are no beings that are really supernatural, hence them all being figments of the imagination.