Peanut Gallery

Then absolutely anything can be cited as subjective evidence of the supernatural. If I take a particularly satisfying morning dump and decide to attribute the intensity of this experience to some supernatural agent then I have as much evidence of the existence of supernatural entities as you do. My position is based on the "base foundational a priori assumption of science" that objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be representative of reaity than baselessly conceived subjective notions regarding causes.

I dispute the need to test things in the way you insist upon. In the same way that I don't have any means to test that the universe was created 1 second ago with completely different natural laws (specifically with regard to falling pens) than the ones that my memory has been falsely imbued with.Yet I still know, even before testing, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts. Tentatively - If you insist on philosophical pendaticism. But I KNOW to all practical intents and purposes.I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.

What do you think my pen will do?

How confident can we be of this conclusion? Is this conclusion ultimately based on just an opinion or something more?

​

Do we need to test all evidentially baseless propositions before we claim knowledge RAZ? Or just the things you don't want us to dismiss because you happen to believe in them?

If you can't give an example of something supernatural that can conceivably actually exist I don't really see how this can progress any further. You are playing atheism by definitions. And why would that constitute "supernatural"? No. Your usage suggests a temporary state of affairs rather than an inherent property of something. I can prove that 1 does not equal zero. I cannot prove that Thor does not exist.So - Yes.

All we have seen is ambiguous statements about "experiences". In three years on this same subject RAZ has yet to give a single example directly relevant to anything supernatural. Since when did "empirical" mean the same as "objectively verified"....?If someone claims to have seen Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster they are claiming an unverified empirical observation.If someone claims a "religious experience" then frankly it seems to entail whatever they subjectively consider to have been caused by some god or other. Absolutely anything can be cited.If I suddenly feel a wave of nausea and choose to attribute this to Digby the magic hamster who causes nausea in those whom he doesn't like then I have as much evidence for the existence of Digby as most seem to have for their chosen entity on the basis of these much cited "religious experiences".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Chuck how are you differentiating between a supernatural experience and a non-supernatural experience? OK. So how do I know if a particular experience is being caused by a supernatural entity then? I have had dreams about all sorts of things. Including the sort of entities we discuss on this forum. Were these "supernatural experiences"? Our imagination.....? Chuck you pseudoskeptic you!!! How do you know they aren't being caused by Aphrodite? Repeatedly. Do you have an answer? So whatever subjective experiences I have are subjective evidence of whatever I choose to believe caused that experience. Any experience is "evidence" of anything I choose.So not actually a form of evidence at all. Just an extension of belief dressed up as something more profound.

The Matrix is in principle no more supernatural than Gears Of WarHow do non-material things influence material brains or other aspects of the material world? I've told you about my wonderful Ford but I can't demonstrate it's existence to anyone. Nobody has ever seen me drive it and there isn't even any evidence that I have actually driven this Ford anywhere. It isn't registered. I don't know what it looks like because it's invisible and I have a long history of inventing cars that demonstrably don't exist. This is the latest in a long line of such concepts. All the indications are that I genuinely believe in the existence of this thing but aside from my conviction there is absolutely no reason to think it is anything other than that which the past record of delusion suggests.If you told me I was "full of it" you should be shaken by the hand and commended you on your sensible approach. Then you should be able to point me to one of them. Please do.

Your "agnostic" answer?I am apparently (according to RAZ) an irrational, illogical pseudoskeptic because I consider concepts like Thor more likely to be human inventions than real entities.You however are unable to cite even a single supernatural entity which you can conceive of as actually existing. You even go so far as to suggest that your degree of certainty is in some cases equivalent to mathematical disproof. And yet you are the agnostic here......? Atheism by definition turns into agnosticism by assertion. That is kinda the idea of asking for an example of a supernatural entity that might conceivably exist. I mean that the "scientific community" don't define what is or is not supernatural. No. The Earth going round the Sun is not, and never was, supernatural. If any experts labelled it as such they were simply wrong weren't they?

So what does RAZ mean by "detectable but not in an empirical manner"......?Is he making the same mistake as you?Why don't you ask him?

Well if you consider the predicted motion of a falling pen as nothing more than an opinion then it is little wonder you can't understand how anything else can be considered a form of tentative knowledge. What a pile of black and white simplistic drivel. The entirety of science as a route to knowledge is based on tentatively concluding that the most objectively evidenced conclusion is more likely to be correct than the various evidentially baseless but untestable alternatives.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In which case there have been, by definition, numerous genuinely supernatural events and phenomena in the past. Everything from evil spirits causing illness through to the Earth going round the Sun have, as you state, been defined by the scientific community of the time as supernatural. In which case supernatural things have undeniably existed and bluegenes theory was falsified centuries ago.Which is fine.Except for the rather inconvenient fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything anybody else here is talking about.

Those who define the concepts they create (or I suppose conceivably - detect) as being immune from material explanation are the ones who define them as supernatural. Because that is what supernatural means. Literally - Relating to existence outside the natural world and/or possessing powers that violate or go beyond natural forces. For example: Does it sound to you like these people are talking about something that is just a few generations of particle accelerator away from being scientifically explained? Nightmare is a fictional supernatural character. NOT because a bunch of scientists decided it. But because he is defined as being supernatural. Likewise Harry Potter, Galadriel, Christ, Thor, Voldermort, Leprechauns, fairies, dragons, Allah, Vishnu etc. etc. etc.Things which are defined as being materially inexplicable in scientific terms no matter how advanced science might become.

Are you still unable to give an example of something supernatural that can conceivably actually exist? As Aristotle said: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. If you can't give an example then you are still just playing a game of atheism by definitions. Supernatural concepts are supernatural concepts. Whether people believe they are fictional or real is the only basis upon which to make any distinction in the absence of anything that can meaningfully be called positive evidence for the actual existence any such entity. As far as I am concerned they are all likely to be fictional. So what non-fictional entity are you talking about? The ability and proclivity of humans to invent such things is indeed evidenced in abundance isn't it? What does make a particular being supernatural then? Be specific. Why? And more to the point - How are you deciding which entities are fictional and which aren't? Jesus Christ is defined (as I understand it) as the miraculously conceived, miracle capable, eternal son of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who is not just his dad but also an aspect of himself.If this isn't supernatural what is?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Concepts which are defined as having inherent properties.

And I hadn't even gotten round to mentioning Christ as magically absorbing all of mankind's sins which was necessary because his dad (who is himself) decided that some sort of brutal and convuluted sacrifice was necessary in order to forgive people for the things he knew they were going to do long before they even existed. Etc. That is lovely for you.But more helpful to this discussion would be a method by which we could differentiate fictional supernatural entities from real ones......?

If you want to know whether or not Harry Potter has supernatural abilities ask JK Rowling rather than the scientific community. If you want to know whether the Christ of Christianity is a supernatural entity or not ask Chuck or Slevesque or BUz rather than the scientific community. If you want to know whether Vishnu is a supernatural entity or not ask a Hindu.If you want to know whether thunder and lightning can be explained naturally ask the scientific community. If you want to know whether Thor is s supernatural being or not then ask an expert in Norse mythology.Concepts are defined as supernatural based on the meaning of "supernatural" as pertaining to existence outside of the natural world and/or possessing powers that violate or go beyond natural forces. The scientific community has very little to do with it. That is why Thor is still a supernatural being despite the fact that science long ago made any supernatural cause for thunder and lightning obsolete to all but the most philosophically pedantic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.