This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Supernatural: Redux
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Unless it's about cameras and fake tv shows of course =P.
Post by
Atik
Unless it's about cameras and fake tv shows of course =P.
Still able to be logically explained.
Unlike magical spirits that like to hang around after their bodies croak.
Post by
Orranis
What about God. Why can't he be metaphorical of creation? I mean, he's a pretty substantial part of the Judeo-Christian origin of the world. There was plenty of metaphor in the Bible, God liked to use metaphor a lot. But I don't think you can claim that all of the clearly untrue statements that were written as having actually happened before questioning whether the thing in its entirety is a metaphor.
This would probably be more effective were I a Christian, or Jewish. Any god
could be
entirely metaphorical, but I don't consider them as such, given how they are worshiped. This is also the point in a debate where I would require you to provide all those "clearly untrue statements," including proof that they were, in fact, untrue. That, however, is an entirely different thread altogether, and frankly, it's tiring arguing with atheists or general non-believers about such things, much as I imagine it is tiring arguing with a believer from the opposite side.
So basically what you're saying is that it's an effective argument to call any statement made by yourself to cause the downfall of your point a metaphor, simile, or other such poetic and vague term, until inevitably the argument itself is questioned, in which case it is denied without base.
Are you familiar with the term
Occam's Razor
?
I am quite familiar with it being used as a logical fallacy, yes.
Hmm...
Chaos is the wrong term, given what it means in English and what it means in Greek. "Void" would be closer to home. However, we can very clearly understand that Gaia and Uranus did not form ex-nihilo and make lots of little Titan and Cyclopes babies.
Sarcasm.
I would disagree. Logic is a principle of reasoning. Logically, you cannot be 100% sure of anything, but Atheists are not 100% sure that God does not exist. That belief is
NOT
agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that the truth value of a topic, especially metaphysical claims, is unknown and unknowable. That is the neutral state, however, logically we realize that if nothing is 100% certain, we must use said logic to predict what is most likely in the natural world, through tools such as Occam's Razor.
I'm sorry, I didn't misuse agnosticism. I never said atheists were agnostics.
Logic dictates we must work with facts, not just "what seems right or most likely." Because there are no facts in regards to the supernatural (aside from what people have experienced and that no proof of such has been scientifically sound), we must then draw a blank conclusion as the only logically sound conclusion. There are no facts, thus we do not know if said entities exist.
And yet, logically, we know that we
only
work with what seems most likely. All of logic is based upon this. The idea that you can't know anything, save the idea that you in whatever form exist, for 100% certainty is a fact. We can also use logic to indirectly prove why it is ineffective, and moreover silly, to consider the evidence lacking alternatives.
What do you mean by the realm of scientific observation? Scientific observation is not a thing. Science is a method of looking at things to discern which situation makes the most sense. If the supernatural does effect the natural world in any way, you being included in the natural world, at the very least science can observe it, if it can't properly attribute it to anything.
How do you test the supernatural?
A better question: how do you observe a deity, in a repeatable fashion, when said deity can do nearly anything, including making things happen without being readily visible?
Do you see how this could be beyond the scope of science, which deals with the natural, observable world?
We may not be able to observe a deity, but, assuming it exists and can effect the natural world (make things happen), we can clearly observe the effects at the very least, at which point some hypothesis must be made on it's origin, and then proven. While it's true we'll never be able to directly show it's the supernatural, I'm thinking of the real world, where said effects have not been empirically proven.
Yes it does. I mean, not in the way you're saying it, it's not "whoever disagrees with me is wrong," but in the end of a debate in which the answers are mutually exclusive, and it is a yes or no question, one of us is wrong. That's logical.
This assumes the answers are mutually exclusive. If we are dealing with the common perception of the Christian God, this is an entity that can a) create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and b) lift said rock. Certainly, one can use common sense when dealing with religion, but as my logic professor said, logic can't really be used on gods. Logic is a tool, a very handy tool, but it is best to know when to use a certain tool and when not to. A hammer will not fit every situation. Human logic (which is constrained by the human mind, by the way) will not fit every situation.
I'm saying that in the end, the supernatural does or doesn't exist. And that's just an argument on the impossibility of omnipotence, a human concept as well. The supernatural does not need to be omnipotent. However, I can logically assume, that if something is illogical (as you yourself have stated), is backed by no evidence (as your yourself have inferred), that it is worth less of my time than entertaining that I'm in a coma on life-support and this is just a dream. I mean, at least that's a logical situation.
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Atik
I could also talk about the hubris of man, in thinking the world must conform to what he perceives, and anything outside that perception must be false.
That is mostly just me.
If I don't agree with something, I have a tendancy to deny its exsistance.
I do it all the time when we get massive amounts of snow. "F*ck man, I don't see any snow."
Post by
Skreeran
Consider this:
There are certain observable laws of reality that have been verified by science. If a person tells a story that breaks these laws, which is more likely, knowing human nature: that the person is mistaken or lying, or that the observed laws are wrong?
Then you have cases where a supernatural being has a convenient exception (like "God made the laws of physics, so of course he isn't confined to them"). In that case, since no exceptions to the laws of physics have been observed (that is to say, whenever anything has been observed to contradict the laws of physics, it they have been rewritten to include it), and no conclusive evidence of the proposed being has been brought forth, it's still easier to believe that the person is mistaken or lying than that an unobserved being that contradicts the known laws of nature exists.
In some cases, people suggest creatures that don't contradict nature at all. Unicorns, chupacabra, and vampires all don't necessarily contradict the laws of nature, but it's still less likely that they exist and we've never found them than the alternative (that the people who first wrote of them were either mistaken or making it up).
It's sorta like this: Your neighbors claims he is being stalked by ninjas. You've never seen them, and you're pretty sure that ninjas were just feudal Japanese peasant-assassins, but he swears it's true. He says that you can't see them because they're
that good
.
Would you take him seriously?
Post by
mmorpgaddict
I reckon there are an infinite number of forces in this universe that we know nothing of. Some might label them as "supernatural" only because they don't understand it. Like our sun, and other stars. We can now explain it, and realize it's quite natural (and not super) indeed. In time, and with enough intellect (which I don't think we'll ever have), all things could be explained rationally without evoking the supernatural.
Post by
818479
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
If someone tells you we, and all other animate and inanimate objects are just made up of a series of tiny spherical objects 90% of which is empty space, but which are way too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscope, would you take him seriously?
When put that way, probabbly not, but that is the generally accepted theory of Atoms.
However, the theory of atoms has the most proof of it's existence. His neighbor seems to lack proof that ninjas are following him.
Post by
Adamsm
Well if the ninja's are really following him, and he's seen them, they must be that rarest of rare clans; the Highly Visible American Ninja: aka the Foot.
Post by
818479
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
If someone tells you we, and all other animate and inanimate objects are just made up of a series of tiny spherical objects 90% of which is empty space, but which are way too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscope, would you take him seriously?
When put that way, probabbly not, but that is the generally accepted theory of Atoms.
However, the theory of atoms has the most proof of it's existence. His neighbor seems to lack proof that ninjas are following him.
It dosen't have any proof. It just fits. The theory of atoms makes sense, and fits in with the evidence we have very well. In that sense, so do the supernatural.
Evidence = proof.
Post by
OverZealous
If someone tells you we, and all other animate and inanimate objects are just made up of a series of tiny spherical objects 90% of which is empty space, but which are way too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscope, would you take him seriously?
When put that way, probabbly not, but that is the generally accepted theory of Atoms.
However, the theory of atoms has the most proof of it's existence. His neighbor seems to lack proof that ninjas are following him.
It dosen't have any proof. It just fits. The theory of atoms makes sense, and fits in with the evidence we have very well. In that sense, so do the supernatural.
Evidence = proof.
Not quite, but almost. At least I think so.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
I would like to know in what sense the supernatural conforms to the notion of a
theory
-- besides which, I would like to know what the Theory of the Supernatural is, and whether it has been peer-reviewed in a scientific journal.
Seems like a huge contradiction in terms to me. Something that is "supernatural" is literally "above" or "outside" nature, which sort of makes it difficult to present any evidence to support the Hypothesis of the Supernatural, let alone enough to redefine it from a hypothesis to a theory.
I figure you're being sarcastic anyway, but ;)
Post by
818479
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
It dosen't have any proof.
A theory is a hypothesis which has been proven by scientific method. People like to say that things are "Only theories", but it doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.
Gravity
is a theory.
A Theory is a scientific hypothesis that has enough evidence to back it up, but can not yet be considered a hard fact because it has no definite proof."Hard fact" is not a scientific term.
Gravity and heliocentrism are theories, and those are considered "hard facts."
Not at all. Proof is final, almost incontradictable (unless a drastic change happens). Evidence is what makes theories: it is bits and pieces pointing in a certain direction. To make an example:
Evidence to Justin Bieber being gay would be him passing certain comments or seeing men leave his house in a tired fashion, or thousands of other hints at it.
Proof to Justin Bieber being gay could only be him admitting it personally or him being caught with another guy. Therefore, Inconclusive.
Like ghosts, and the supernatural, the Atomic theory has evidence to back it up, but no actual proof.There is no such thing as "proof" in a scientific sense. True proof only exists in a mathematical sense.
Atomic theory is as close to proven as scientifically possible. In layman's terms, it's a hard fact. So is gravitational theory, herliocentric theory, and evolutionary theory.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Levarus
ghosts, and the supernatural, have evidence to back it up, but no actual proof.
Show me your empirical, repeatable evidence that correlates sufficiently towards ghosts and the supernatural such that you can form a cogent theory from it.
*brain explodes*
Post by
gnomerdon
If you want me to summarize,
"show me something with facts and consistency in the long run that relates to ghosts..."
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.