Topic: testing the Supernatural (Read 10689 times)

fattychunks · « **on:** June 09, 2006, 09:07:32 PM »

how is this possible and what are some posts i can read that could try to refute naturalism. i think that would be key for me.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:16:54 PM »

The key is to look for natural things that suggest the supernatural. For example, if it can be reasonably argued that the best historical stance to take is that the Gospels are true (Johnny argues just such a position, you might want to look around for his old arguments, though there was a big hack a while back that killed over half of the forum's posts, I think), then you've built a strong case for Christianity. Why do you think atheists are so adamant on arguing that Jesus was just a myth, a fraud, or a misunderstood wise man?

The crux of the matter, though, is that presupposing either the supernatural or no supernatural is folly. Until you've investigated, best to be a fence-sitter on the matter. Otherwise you argue from incredulity, which is a whopper of a fallacy.

fattychunks · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:33:36 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

The key is to look for natural things that suggest the supernatural. For example, if it can be reasonably argued that the best historical stance to take is that the Gospels are true (Johnny argues just such a position, you might want to look around for his old arguments, though there was a big hack a while back that killed over half of the posts), then you've built a strong case for Christianity. Why do you think atheists are so adamant on arguing that Jesus was just a myth, a fraud, or a misunderstood wise man?

The crux of the matter, though, is that presupposing either the supernatural or no supernatural is folly. Until you've investigated, best to be a fence-sitter on the matter. Otherwise you argue from incredulity, which is a whopper of a fallacy.

ok, but how does assuming that supernatural is even POSSIBLE help advance productive knowledge? or scientific knowledge. i think just from looking at history and seeing what has advanced medicine and technology (natural observation) has not been influenced by anything we thought COULD'VE been SUPERnatural. i think it's presumptious to assume that something is supernatural cuz then that means you've considered all possible natural explanations and the only last explanation is supernatural. i mean, consider this, we're merely 50 years into neroscience. so many thingsthat are considered spiritual may be explained through further study of the mind in 200 years. i dont see any reason to think supernatural is even possible when we're in such an explosive time in science...

Deep Thought · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:59:06 PM »

Of course you don't just out of the blue assume some random supernatural idea just 'cause you're not getting how it could naturally be so. We made the same mistake with lightning, as I recall, and sai Franklin's poor kite had to pay the price.

The point in allowing room for the possibility of the supernatural is not merely to advance the supernatural, but to keep ourselves from rejecting it prematurely.

And bear in mind: what might be wrong is not necessarily wrong, and tomorrow is always a day away. If the allegedly supernatural might be chalked up to natural cause twenty years from now, that's not grounds to throw our hands up in surrender, nor grounds to reject offhand. For all we know it might not be refuted twenty, forty, eighty, or even a hundred years down the road. Heck, it might not be refuted at all. What matters to us is what's the most reasonable thing to believe today. There is only the now.

Just keep your eyes peeled for evidence and argument both for and against, and check your incredulity at the door. Look at things as an extremely stubborn-yet-unbiased person when you examine evidence. Don't be swayed unless you have a darn good reason to be.

Testing the supernatural in this case, anyway, is more about ascertaining the truth or falsity of already-present claims, rather than making up supernatural causes for oddities in the brain. I don't think neroscience quite covers resurrections.

fattychunks · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2006, 10:21:46 PM »

i still dont understand why assuming supernaturalism is even possible is beneficial or productive though. why shouldnt i rule something out that has no evidence for it? supernaturalism sounds pretty extrordinary, so i'd have to have some reason to assume it's even psosible.

as for resurrections, i dont think jesus rose from the dead.. because it IS so impossible, it'd be considered a supernatural occurance, which is a different subject

Deep Thought · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2006, 10:26:09 PM »

Quote from: fattychunks

i still dont understand why assuming supernaturalism is even possible is beneficial or productive though. why shouldnt i rule something out that has no evidence for it? supernaturalism sounds pretty extrordinary, so i'd have to have some reason to assume it's even psosible.

Please note: I said assuming it was impossible before investigating thoroughly was wrong. If you know there's no evidence for it, that would imply that you've already investigated, no?

Well, have you? Investigated thoroughly, I mean?

Quote

as for resurrections, i dont think jesus rose from the dead.. because it IS so impossible, it'd be considered a supernatural occurance, which is a different subject

But if the evidence were to point toward resurrection as the most probable historical fact, would you still reject it on those ground?

fattychunks · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2006, 11:37:16 PM »

"'Please note: I said assuming it was impossible before investigating thoroughly was wrong. If you know there's no evidence for it, that would imply that you've already investigated, no?

Well, have you? Investigated thoroughly, I mean? "

how could you investigate something that doesnt have evidence. because if i did find evidence for supernatural, wouldnt it then be natural evidence of the supernatural, thus it wouldnt be supernatural anymore, but natural. seems like an impossbility to even gain evidenc for something supernatural anyways. seems like an unapproachable task.

so i'd still ask, how do you test for the supernatural?

"But if the evidence were to point toward resurrection as the most probable historical fact, would you still reject it on those ground?"

based on historical evidence? what historical evidence? the gospels? sorry, not evidence. i havent spent a whole lot of time on the gospel but since the gospels came out of a time where people banged pots at the sun when an eclipse happened thinking a witch was castign a spell... please, these were gullible, superstitious people. i sure dont feel qualified to discuss the hundreds of ways to interpret these stories but i think an unbiased view of history shows how superstitious the culture was around that time. then you see 500 saints being raised from the dead when jesus did (matthew) from the later gospels, 500 people seeng jesus... come on, super extrordinary, but there is no super evidence.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2006, 12:04:21 AM »

Quote from: fattychunks

how could you investigate something that doesnt have evidence.

How would you know it doesn't have evidence until you've investigated it?

Quote

because if i did find evidence for supernatural, wouldnt it then be natural evidence of the supernatural, thus it wouldnt be supernatural anymore, but natural.

Yes, just like the rustling leaves can't possibly be evidence of the wind, oh no, because the leaves are not the wind, they are the leaves.

This is really elementary stuff: the effect is evidence of the cause.

Quote

seems like an impossbility to even gain evidenc for something supernatural anyways. seems like an unapproachable task.

so i'd still ask, how do you test for the supernatural?

Well, what "seems" and what "is" are two different things, fatty. It's really quite approachable. People have been doing this since the beginning of the last ever.

Quote

based on historical evidence? what historical evidence? the gospels? sorry, not evidence.

Heh heh. Who says the Gospels? I didn't specify. T'was a hypothetical question. I'm not arguing that this is the case, I'm asking what you would do if it was.

Quote

i havent spent a whole lot of time on the gospel but since the gospels came out of a time where people banged pots at the sun when an eclipse happened thinking a witch was castign a spell... please, these were gullible, superstitious people. i sure dont feel qualified to discuss the hundreds of ways to interpret these stories but i think an unbiased view of history shows how superstitious the culture was around that time. then you see 500 saints being raised from the dead when jesus did (matthew) from the later gospels, 500 people seeng jesus... come on, super extrordinary, but there is no super evidence.

Again: how would you know that unless you'd investigated?

You can't invoke "no evidence" unless you've looked into the matter thoroughly enough to claim that for certain, so again: have you, or are you just saying what it looks like from where you happen to be standing?

(Johnny, Copernicus, and all you other guys can leap in any time you want, y'know...)

fattychunks · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2006, 12:12:59 AM »

"Yes, just like the rustling leaves can't possibly be evidence of the wind, oh no, because the leaves are not the wind, they are the leaves.

This is really elementary stuff: the effect is evidence of the cause. "

of course, but we understand the elements of wind... you just used a natural example for the topic supernaturalism. if i see leaves move, i know there's a natural cause. that's my question, you seem to be dodging it. how do you test for the supernatural? because whatever evidence tehre could BE would have to be something tangible, or percievable... thus natural, so it doesnt make sense why on earth it'd be more probable to assume the supernatural could be a remote possibility

"Again: how would you know that unless you'd investigated?

You can't invoke "no evidence" unless you've looked into the matter thoroughly enough to claim that for certain, so again: have you, or are you just saying what it looks like from where you happen to be standing? "

and you still dodged my question, how do you test for something supernatural. how can i investigate something that is beyond the fabric of my world i live in (natural). if evidence is found, then it would have to be natural. natural evidence for supernatural is contradictory, it sounds like an impossibility because evidence found for supernatural would then be natural evidence... thus the most PROBABLE conclusion could NOT be SUPERnatural. seems completely impossible to me. so, you cant ask me if i've investigated supernatural possibilities if i dont know how. i dont know how to use anything but rational, tangible possibilities which seems to be completely impossible to prove anything BEYOND the natural world.

fattychunks · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2006, 12:27:15 AM »

well i guess your answer was uhm witnessing the effects of the supernatural, correct? but then you have the problem that all that we percieve is through natural means, so it then is a matter of probability and rational thought. is it more probable that something be supernatural or it must have some natural explaination? then lets look at history. based on logic, our natural explanation of the world has progressed us in further productive knowledge in science and medicine. i think here understanding that everything scientific is then falsifiable, we can create theories that can be falsified... what can we do with supernatural 'effects'? doesnt seem logical that an 'effect' of a supernatural can be falsifiable, and i seem to have a problem with understanding where something supernatural has benefited us in history.. like in medicine or science. to me, it then just seems more probable that whatever we assume had better be based on our natural understanding of the world if we wish to remain in the lines of productive knowledge...

k 1:30 here, i'm done fer the night, oofta.
that was fun.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2006, 12:47:31 AM »

Quote from: fattychunks

of course, but we understand the elements of wind... you just used a natural example for the topic supernaturalism. if i see leaves move, i know there's a natural cause.

You do? Really? How do you know it's not telepathy?

What if you saw a man come back from the dead (or were convinced that, as a historical fact, one did)? Would you chalk that up to natural causes as well?

Quote

that's my question, you seem to be dodging it. how do you test for the supernatural? because whatever evidence tehre could BE would have to be something tangible, or percievable... thus natural, so it doesnt make sense why on earth it'd be more probable to assume the supernatural could be a remote possibility

More probable? Golly, by no means. It's just no less likely than its opposite number, and it shouldn't be assumed thus until you have a darned good reason to put it below the alternative.

Quote

and you still dodged my question, how do you test for something supernatural.

I've answered that: by looking for things that would suggest the supernatural. Like historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps.

Quote

how can i investigate something that is beyond the fabric of my world i live in (natural). if evidence is found, then it would have to be natural. natural evidence for supernatural is contradictory,

No, it's not. If the supernatural were to be knowable, it would have to interact with that which was natural, and that is exactly what Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and all those other fun claims) claim to be the case. And if the supernatural were to interact with the natural, then it follows logically that it probably left tracks, if you will--it left its mark, and you have to look for it.

If the supernatural were to not interact with the natural world, as in the case of deism, then it'd be completely unknowable. There'd be no case for or against it. It's the UFO behind the comet, if you follow. In such cases assumed naturalism is quite appropriate, as all you can do is assume. But Christianity, Judaism, etc. make no such claim. They put God beyond the real world and then have him interact with it so that they are all, to some degree, testable. (Johnny contends that Christianity is especially testable, but you can talk to him about that.)

Quote

it sounds like an impossibility because evidence found for supernatural would then be natural evidence... thus the most PROBABLE conclusion could NOT be SUPERnatural.

Pardon? If you become convinced via historical (i.e. natural) evidence that a man claiming to be the Son of God and prophesying his own resurrection did indeed rise from the dead... you'd still say the most probable conclusion would not be supernatural? Pardon me, but that makes no sense. Coming back from the dead... that defies nature, that does.

Quote

seems completely impossible to me. so, you cant ask me if i've investigated supernatural possibilities if i dont know how.

And if you don't know how, you can't very well say "there is no evidence," since by your own admission you couldn't tell evidence from a pack of thimbles.

Quote

i dont know how to use anything but rational, tangible possibilities which seems to be completely impossible to prove anything BEYOND the natural world.

Prove? Egads, if you're looking for absolute proof, you'd better reject evolutionism, too. No absolute proof there, but people still believe that. Nah, just shoot for determining which path is more reasonable.

fattychunks · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2006, 08:59:53 AM »

"You do? Really? How do you know it's not telepathy?"

that'd be silly.

"What if you saw a man come back from the dead (or were convinced that, as a historical fact, one did)? Would you chalk that up to natural causes as well?"

i havent, so i cant answer that question. but there's been many cases of supposed 'raising from the dead' instances that CAN be explained medically. i mean, many. i'll have to look for the book, but again, we do not know everything so it seems premature and unfair to assume it'd even be possible to assume supernatural is even POSSIBLE.. if we can understand it naturally, and know how it worked and such why NOT search for the understandable, the science of the event in hopes to better understand the WORLD to advance science and our understanding the of the world.... just astounds me why anything would want to entertain this possibility... simply appears to me, still, that it's an untestable, unprovable, subjective theory that will produce nothing in advancing our understanding of that which has advanced us as people already.

"More probable? Golly, by no means. It's just no less likely than its opposite number, and it shouldn't be assumed thus until you have a darned good reason to put it below the alternative."

i have darn good reason to not even entertain the possibility because i dont understand the productiveness of supernatural anything

"I've answered that: by looking for things that would suggest the supernatural. Like historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps."

you're comparing history and deluded stories by a gullible, superstitious generation to superntaural possibilities. doesnt seem to flow.

"No, it's not. If the supernatural were to be knowable, it would have to interact with that which was natural"

why would you want something supernatural to be the cause of a natural effect?

i see no reason to even entertain supernaturalism. since you or any supernaturalism is making this positive claim, i'd have to understand the process for searching for. or at least a falsifiable theory.

"They put God beyond the real world and then have him interact with it so that they are all, to some degree, testable. (Johnny contends that Christianity is especially testable, but you can talk to him about that.)"

and i would assume he's posit some prayer hypothesis like that jerk from carm, vapor i think his name was... when you play with the aspects of the mind, of course anything is possible. seems very subjective.

"you'd still say the most probable conclusion would not be supernatural? Pardon me, but that makes no sense. Coming back from the dead... that defies nature, that does."

if you're ultimate conclusion is something supernatural, then you've already lost the battle. something natural is infinitely more probable then a supernatural explanation. it's more productive.

"And if you don't know how, you can't very well say "there is no evidence," since by your own admission you couldn't tell evidence from a pack of thimbles."

uh i can tell what evidence is of course ,because it'd be natural evidence. looking for small little 'effects' of supernaturalism that have become natural seems like such a silly way for supernatural whatever to make itself known.

"Prove? Egads, if you're looking for absolute proof, you'd better reject evolutionism, too. No absolute proof there, but people still believe that. Nah, just shoot for determining which path is more reasonable."

evolution is of course a theory that is backed up by facts over years and years of research, testable research. i've read articles of how it's been tested in labs and such, and it's a factual theory. like the world is round is a theory, but a theory backed up by so many facts it will never be a disproven theory. supernaturalism seems to simply be an unprovable theory that dances around the fact that it's the most improbable path to possibility.

to exist means to us that it has definable attributes that are naturally observed through some means. if you say something supernatural can exist as we know it to exist, then it couldnt possibily be SUPERnatural. it would have to be natural. i see no reason to assume supernatural is even possible. in my opinion, thus far you would have to know all possible natural explanations and theories to assume the only other explanation is supernatural. because i dont see how just assuming the remote possibility of supernatural could benefit a further understanding of the world... since the world is natural. and our attention should remain rational, and i dont think i've seen or heard how presupposing even the possibility of something existing beyond the natural is rational. i just read this, this morning...

"In order to function as grounds for belief, evidence must precede the acceptance of an idea. it makes no sense to accept the idea first and then search for evidence to sipport it. This is irrationalization, not rationality." pg 225, atheism, case against god, Smith

so it seems like we're going to dance around this problem that we just disagree on. i feel i shouldnt even accept the irrational remote possibility of an irrational theory and you say that i shouldnt dismiss it until i've investigated it. but the means of investigating it are apparently entirely intangible, but if you or johnny posits something as subjective as prayer (something i did for almost 4 hours a day when i was a theist, mind you) then i dont feel this would be a productive community for me to be involved in. nothing consistant or reliable comes from prayer.. is there anything productive or consistant or testable that comes from testing the supernatural? why should i accpet this IDEA before i see any evidence or reason to assume it's even possible?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2006, 10:36:00 AM »

Quote from: fattychunks

"You do? Really? How do you know it's not telepathy?"

that'd be silly.

Would it, now.

And how do you know that?

Quote

i havent, so i cant answer that question. but there's been many cases of supposed 'raising from the dead' instances that CAN be explained medically. i mean, many. i'll have to look for the book, but again, we do not know everything so it seems premature and unfair to assume it'd even be possible to assume supernatural is even POSSIBLE.. if we can understand it naturally, and know how it worked and such why NOT search for the understandable, the science of the event in hopes to better understand the WORLD to advance science and our understanding the of the world.... just astounds me why anything would want to entertain this possibility... simply appears to me, still, that it's an untestable, unprovable, subjective theory that will produce nothing in advancing our understanding of that which has advanced us as people already.

Well, good luck, then.

Quote

i have darn good reason to not even entertain the possibility because i dont understand the productiveness of supernatural anything

Click here and read the contents.

Quote

you're comparing history and deluded stories by a gullible, superstitious generation to superntaural possibilities. doesnt seem to flow.

*shakes head* Fatty, fatty, fatty. Even the people who believe those stories are myths do so with historical-evidence arguments. Have you even looked to see what the arguments for and against this are? Johnny would give you such a chewing out if he were here... ^_^'

Quote

why would you want something supernatural to be the cause of a natural effect?

It's not a question of what you want. It's a question of what is. Is the most probable cause supernatural? Is it natural? Can we even tell which is more probable? You'll never know if you don't look, dangitall!

Quote

i see no reason to even entertain supernaturalism. since you or any supernaturalism is making this positive claim, i'd have to understand the process for searching for. or at least a falsifiable theory.

Well, for the example of Christianity, you'd have to falsify the resurrection via historical evidence, or at least determine that the resurrection isn't the most likely conclusion you'd draw from the evidence. That's testable. That's falsifiable. There are so many claims in the Bible that are just kind of out there, waiting either to shine or be torn to shreds and dismissed as trash after all. Find that which seems to cry "TEST ME!" and start from there.

A good thing to do would be to look up the arguments apologists use for the historical reliability of the Bible, and then research the things they invoke so as to ascertain the reliability of that.

Quote

and i would assume he's posit some prayer hypothesis like that jerk from carm, vapor i think his name was... when you play with the aspects of the mind, of course anything is possible. seems very subjective.

You don't know the first thing about Johnny. I've never heard him spout any of that gnosticish crap.

Quote

if you're ultimate conclusion is something supernatural, then you've already lost the battle. something natural is infinitely more probable then a supernatural explanation. it's more productive.

Well, then, I give up.

You've forever placed yourself beyond refutal. As long as you continue under that assumption, no thing and no one will be able to convince you otherwise, whatever the proof is.

Quote

uh i can tell what evidence is of course ,because it'd be natural evidence. looking for small little 'effects' of supernaturalism that have become natural seems like such a silly way for supernatural whatever to make itself known.

Argument from incredulity again! You commit that fallacy a lot, don't ya...?

Quote

evolution is of course a theory that is backed up by facts over years and years of research, testable research. i've read articles of how it's been tested in labs and such, and it's a factual theory. like the world is round is a theory, but a theory backed up by so many facts it will never be a disproven theory. supernaturalism seems to simply be an unprovable theory that dances around the fact that it's the most improbable path to possibility.

The world is round ceased to really be a "theory" when man went up into space, looked down, and saw just how round it really is. (The fact that you can just keep going east without turning and eventually reach the place where you started--that helps, too.

) There's also the fundamental difference between evolution and the round earth... the former is past, the latter is present. Evolution is all infering based on the evidence whereas to prove the Earth is round one need only get in a plane and fly, fly, fly until you've gone around, around, around! We've seen the roundness of the Earth, but we've never seen apes gradually breed themselves over countless millennia into humans. Because of this, determining the truth of evolutionism is more complicated than determining whether or not the earth is round. The second is directly observable; the first is not (although microevolution presents a strong support for macroevolution, as I've heard it so far--but I'm not jumping THAT gun 'til I've actually looked into it).

Quote

to exist means to us that it has definable attributes that are naturally observed through some means.

Um, no. To exist is simply to be. Whatever attributes there are have nothing to do with that.

Quote

if you say something supernatural can exist as we know it to exist, then it couldnt possibily be SUPERnatural. it would have to be natural. i see no reason to assume supernatural is even possible.

SING IT!

Incredulity, ain't it grand?
Even has its own flippin' band!
An answer to every question, yeah!
'Cause I don't have a clue, you're wrong--bleah!

Ah, I'm no poet. Point is, you're arguing from incredulity again. That kind of thing looks really... ah... sloppy, to us D&D folk. Better not to argue at all, I think.

Quote

in my opinion, thus far you would have to know all possible natural explanations and theories to assume the only other explanation is supernatural.

I guess you would. *shrug* Did I say anything less than that?

But conversely, you'd have to know all possible natural and supernatural explanations and theories to assume the only probable explanation is natural--without being lazy, I mean.

Quote

because i dont see

There goes that incredulity again! Dang, it is a small world!

Quote

how just assuming the remote possibility of supernatural could benefit a further understanding of the world... since the world is natural.

I guess the question is where the natural came from? ...which is exactly what the supernatural attempts to answer. It certainly wouldn't hurt to see whether the answers have merit. It's not like there's gonna be some tag or plate or carving in the rocks that says "MADE IN HEAVEN" or anything like that, but if the supernatural is to be knowable, it would have to leave some mark upon the natural. I mean, the flipping Bible is a natural thing claiming to be a means by which to know the supernatural. Are you saying that the supernatural could not have possible cause that book? If you're gonna assume that much before looking into it, well, there's not much anyone here can do for you.

Quote

and our attention should remain rational, and i dont think i've seen or heard how presupposing even the possibility of something existing beyond the natural is rational.

Quick crossword question! An eleven-letter word starting with "I" that means "Incredulity." Know one?

Quote

i just read this, this morning...

"In order to function as grounds for belief, evidence must precede the acceptance of an idea. it makes no sense to accept the idea first and then search for evidence to sipport it. This is irrationalization, not rationality." pg 225, atheism, case against god, Smith

How is that compatible with everything you've said? You're accepting that the supernatural is completely unknowable without checking to see if it is really unknowable.

Yeesh. What a way to break my atheism streak, eh? I spend maybe a week siding with practical no one but atheists, and now I'm back to defending theism...

Quote

so it seems like we're going to dance around this problem that we just disagree on. i feel i shouldnt even accept the irrational remote possibility of an irrational theory and you say that i shouldnt dismiss it until i've investigated it. but the means of investigating it are apparently entirely intangible,

Or you're just incredulous as to how they could possible be tangible...

Quote

but if you or johnny posits something as subjective as prayer (something i did for almost 4 hours a day when i was a theist, mind you)

Johnny would not posit prayer as a means of determining whether or not the supernatural exists. All the time I've been listening to him he's been all "evidence, evidence, evidence..."

And I, of course, would not put forth an argument I consider completely ludicrous, so...

Quote

then i dont feel this would be a productive community for me to be involved in.

Well, good, because I've not yet run into that argument on these forums.

Quote

nothing consistant or reliable comes from prayer.. is there anything productive or consistant or testable that comes from testing the supernatural? why should i accpet this IDEA before i see any evidence or reason to assume it's even possible?

If you assume it's NOT possible before you look for evidence, you're gonna look the evidence in the eye and say, "I don't believe you. The cause has to be natural." Best to remain neutral until further notice, friend. Premature assumption has ever been the investigator's fiercest foe.

Cogito · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2006, 01:16:16 PM »

Quote

The crux of the matter, though, is that presupposing either the supernatural or no supernatural is folly.

Actually, the crux of the matter is virtually the opposite of what you imply that it is. The fact of the matter is that it is folly to assume that every claim is worthy of investigation and then to try to thoroughly investigate every claim. I use the phrase 'to try' here because it is literally impossible to actually do so.

What's more, we should be leery of the motivations behind someone's claim that such is a 'good idea.' Often, it's the case where such a person who makes this claim espouses a belief or beliefs that have no evidence whatsover to substantiate them and that rely heavily upon mere 'possibility of occurrence' to support them, which of course, it can do no such thing. Mere 'possibility of occurrence' is trivial.

Quote

Until you've investigated, best to be a fence-sitter on the matter. Otherwise you argue from incredulity, which is a whopper of a fallacy.

This is a misunderstanding of the argument from personal incredulity. Some propositions are self-evident. Some are intuitive (by this I mean we have the evidence of our senses to suggest that they are true).

To argue that we should withhold provisional judgment in such situations is to suggest that we should be so open-minded that we allow our brains to leak out through the openings.

If someone points to what appears to be an empty chair and claims that a man is sitting in the chair, it is not best to be a "fence-sitter" about that claim until you've "thoroughly investigated" all possibilities that pertain to it. You have the evidence of your senses to fully support the provisional belief that the man's claim is mistaken (even though it may not actually be mistaken).

Even though the ground may give way beneath your next step and you may plunge 1,000 feet to your death, that is not the tiniest reason to believe that the ground will give way beneath your next step. Your experience in the world fully justifies your belief that the ground will be solid beneath your next step (even though your next step can always lead to your demise after a fall of 1,000 feet).

Cogito · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2006, 01:44:32 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

Well, for the example of Christianity, you'd have to falsify the resurrection via historical evidence, or at least determine that the resurrection isn't the most likely conclusion you'd draw from the evidence. That's testable. That's falsifiable.

True. And what's more, it's been tested repeatedly and found to be false everytime. That hypothesis is disconfirmed everytime someone dies and is not resurrected. When we make the claim that people are not resurrected from the dead, we're on pretty safe ground.

There is NO historically reliable evidence to suggest that a man was resurrected from the dead two millennia ago and can be none that can even begin to overcome the doubt raised by the physical theory of the world that we -- you included -- have today.

What this comes down to is that some people in this one case (although in few, if any, others) choose to believe a story told centuries ago by a few anonymous men to other anonymous men who then wrote the story down rather than to believe modern physical theory about how the world works.

Hmm. Which is reasonable to believe: hundreds of years old hearsay from a few anonymous sources or the best-confirmed physical theory of the world that Man has?

Doesn't seem like a tough call to me.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2006, 01:56:47 PM »

Well, here was me about to give up hope that fattychunks would hear from anyone other than me...

Quote from: Cogito

Quote
The crux of the matter, though, is that presupposing either the supernatural or no supernatural is folly.
Actually, the crux of the matter is virtually the opposite of what you imply that it is. The fact of the matter is that it is folly to assume that every claim is worthy of investigation and then to try to thoroughly investigate every claim. I use the phrase 'to try' here because it is literally impossible to actually do so.

O-ho. Okay. So because we can't possibly examine everything, nix by default the supernatural and maybe we can squeeze enough of the rest in to be getting on with.

Does that about cover it? 'Cause that sounds really lazy to me.

Quote

What's more, we should be leery of the motivations behind someone's claim that such is a 'good idea.' Often, it's the case where such a person who makes this claim espouses a belief or beliefs that have no evidence whatsover to substantiate them and that rely heavily upon mere 'possibility of occurrence' to support them, which of course, it can do no such thing. Mere 'possibility of occurrence' is trivial.

Agreed. Why do you think I've only required that something be the "most reasonable" conclusion? Deism is possible, but no more reasonable that atheism--maybe less so--so why would one espouse deism over atheism? It would amount to nothing more than a whim, which isn't nearly enough to base a solid conclusion on.

Quote

This is a misunderstanding of the argument from personal incredulity. Some propositions are self-evident. Some are intuitive (by this I mean we have the evidence of our senses to suggest that they are true).

To argue that we should withhold provisional judgment in such situations is to suggest that we should be so open-minded that we allow our brains to leak out through the openings.

If someone points to what appears to be an empty chair and claims that a man is sitting in the chair, it is not best to be a "fence-sitter" about that claim until you've "thoroughly investigated" all possibilities that pertain to it. You have the evidence of your senses to fully support the provisional belief that the man's claim is mistaken (even though it may not actually be mistaken).

Even though the ground may give way beneath your next step and you may plunge 1,000 feet to your death, that is not the tiniest reason to believe that the ground will give way beneath your next step. Your experience in the world fully justifies your belief that the ground will be solid beneath your next step (even though your next step can always lead to your demise after a fall of 1,000 feet).

Great. Now how does all of that pertain to whether or not the supernatural does or does not exist?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2006, 02:17:21 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Deep Thought
Well, for the example of Christianity, you'd have to falsify the resurrection via historical evidence, or at least determine that the resurrection isn't the most likely conclusion you'd draw from the evidence. That's testable. That's falsifiable.

True. And what's more, it's been tested repeatedly and found to be false everytime. That hypothesis is disconfirmed everytime someone dies and is not resurrected. When we make the claim that people are not resurrected from the dead, we're on pretty safe ground.

There is NO historically reliable evidence to suggest that a man was resurrected from the dead two millennia ago and can be none that can even begin to overcome the doubt raised by the physical theory of the world that we -- you included -- have today.

What this comes down to is that some people in this one case (although in few, if any, others) choose to believe a story told centuries ago by a few anonymous men to other anonymous men who then wrote the story down rather than to believe modern physical theory about how the world works.

Hmm. Which is reasonable to believe: hundreds of years old hearsay from a few anonymous sources or the best-confirmed physical theory of the world that Man has?

Doesn't seem like a tough call to me.

Well, as I've not thoroughly examined the evidence, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it.

As I'm sure you know, if your claim that there's no historically reliable evidence for Christianity's truth is true, then I won't find any.

Point of clarification: I don't expect everyone to go to the moon just to see whether or not it's made of cheese. I do, however, think it prudent to examine claims under dispute--and Christianity is under dispute, theism and atheism are under dispute--and do at least enough research and investigation to reach an informed decision.

Rejecting God on the grounds that "I don't see how the supernatural could leave natural evidence" is not informed, it's lazy.

fattychunks · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2006, 08:26:03 PM »

just got off work and have to get back up in 6 hours for more work. didnt expect to respond to anything tonight, but i have to now...

"Well, for the example of Christianity, you'd have to falsify the resurrection via historical evidence, or at least determine that the resurrection isn't the most likely conclusion you'd draw from the evidence. That's testable. That's falsifiable. There are so many claims in the Bible that are just kind of out there, waiting either to shine or be torn to shreds and dismissed as trash after all. Find that which seems to cry "TEST ME!" and start from there.

A good thing to do would be to look up the arguments apologists use for the historical reliability of the Bible, and then research the things they invoke so as to ascertain the reliability of that. "

well i have, and i do. which is why i cant be a christian anymore.

"It's not a question of what you want. It's a question of what is. Is the most probable cause supernatural? Is it natural? Can we even tell which is more probable? You'll never know if you don't look, dangitall! "

you havent told me how to look for it yet.

"You don't know the first thing about Johnny. I've never heard him spout any of that gnosticish crap. "

hope to hear from him then

"Well, then, I give up. You've forever placed yourself beyond refutal. As long as you continue under that assumption, no thing and no one will be able to convince you otherwise, whatever the proof is. "

if there's proof or facts i'd love to hear it, but i havent heard anythig yet

"Argument from incredulity again! You commit that fallacy a lot, don't ya...? "

listen, if all you expect me to do is entertain an imagination, then that's fine, but....

"I guess you would. *shrug* Did I say anything less than that?

But conversely, you'd have to know all possible natural and supernatural explanations and theories to assume the only probable explanation is natural--without being lazy, I mean. "

SUPERnatural, is MORE then natural. you're adding on, i'm staying put. i need reason to assume there's more. i dont feel anything is getting accomplished because i'm seriously trying to understand why there is even a remote possibility why and how in duh hell there could or should be anything more then natural. i'm seriously trying, but yer throwing out this logical falacy i'm apparently using and seems to be geting me nowhere...

" Are you saying that the supernatural could not have possible cause that book?"

how could it? men wrote the words, and many of these men who formed the new testament said they would lie for God's kingdom. History of the church of Ephesians even states they withheld all that would hinder their cause. theres no reason think supernatural anything is involved in the creation of any book. unproductive. again, what benefit, what productive knowledge that could be gained from knowing the supernatural could benefit us in a better understanding of THAT WHICH MATTERS. medicine, science, etc.... i'm seriously trying my best to understand and keep my patience

"How is that compatible with everything you've said? You're accepting that the supernatural is completely unknowable without checking to see if it is really unknowable. "

evidence comes before belief! there's no evidence, no reason, no productive knowledge that seems to encourage any desire or motivation to accept even the remote possibility of anything supernatural. you're asking me to accept the idea before evidence. i have no evidence. therefore no acceptance of any theory. that's how that quote goes with EVERYthing i have said..

"If you assume it's NOT possible before you look for evidence, you're gonna look the evidence in the eye and say, "I don't believe you. The cause has to be natural." Best to remain neutral until further notice, friend. Premature assumption has ever been the investigator's fiercest foe."

thats. what. i. have. been. asking. you. how do i look for evidence for something that is beyond the natural means. and why would i want to look into something that seems entirely unfruitful, unproductive, etc.

maybe it was the long day at work, but it seems like you didnt understand anything i said, deep thought, sorry. i truly asked questions sincerely, and it seemed like you just needed to danced around them. you say i'm presupposing naturalism, but you're presupposing that apparently ANYThing is possible... i dont see how that is productive at al. there ARE absolutes. a doctor knows when to stop cutting so he doesnt break a vien. THATS because it's natural. what can help me understand THAT WHICH MATTERS. the natural world is huge and we're at such a peek in science... why entertain the possibilities of fairy tales and wishful thinking? i see nothing productive or even remotely fruitful in this.

fattychunks · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2006, 08:36:26 PM »

this is from a friend of mine, i remember him saying something that is quite valid

Quote

Well, I am not sure what kind of evidence one would use to prove God exists. The evidence would have be either empirical or logical. How can we use natural methods to prove God? We can't. Science can only prove things that exist in the natural world. Plus, Logic cannot prove ANYTHING exists...it can only prove that If this, then this.

For example, assuming numbers exist, one can construct formal proofs about them...but, mathematics and logic cannot prove the existence of such entities.

Thus, I believe it is impossible to prove supernaturalism. Personally, I am a naturalist and a materialist. These two positions are the default positions. Until someone can show me how something can exist supernaturally OR can exist immaterially, my naturalism and materialism is justified.

fattychunks · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2006, 08:47:48 PM »

which the quote is from these discussions he got involved in
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-19168-rule.html+supernatural

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-12454-rule.html+supernatural

Author Topic: testing the Supernatural (Read 10689 times)

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks