Just because something can be hypothesized does not mean it acquires any default presumption of “possibility” that must be disproven. There are no claims for any supernatural phenomena which ever rise above the level of simple assertion or hypothesis. Science requires empirical support before it can entertain any hypothesis.
Is there any more reason, for instance, to give credence to the existence of telepathy than to the existence of fairies? They both have evactly the same empirical support. It would be decidedly unscientific to lend de facto credence to any assertion or hypothesis until it has at least some empirical support. This is especially true for assertions which would violate the known laws of physics.
If there is no god(s), then there is nothing above nature. So, by definition, even some magic(k)al Wiccan fireball is natural. It would have to have some natural origin, and those forces would be manipulated in a way that accords with causality and science.
The only reason we excuse god from that requirement (if we believe in one or more gods) is that he/she/it exists at least in part outside the universe so it isn’t bound by purely natural causes. In other words, a supernatural event enters the causal chain. Unless a god gets involved, all events in the chain will be natural, and thus could be detected through scientific models of predictability, testibility, and so forth.
If we assume a more than one, more than perhaps, an overwhelming possiblility of ‘scientifically challenged’ events and combinations, we invariably run into a limit of our ability to deal with the events supernatual or observable with all the requisite scientific proof . As scientific proof, what ever that can imply, is limited to what scientist prove, and we recognize that the scientific community is a confessed competitor of supernatual phenomena, it seems that relying on secular verification from a competitor that is literally looking in aniother direction, and purposefully it is self-defeating and axiomatically very inefficient manner of dealing with reality as perceived supernatural by those evperiencing those events. This is like asking the teacher if yiou can excuse yiourself. These 'scientists, that are over most people’s horizon are effectively myjthological, or at least nonexistent.
Some events are discussed as common and represents effects felt by all, or claim to represent universal application. This is naively seen in any interpretion of any biblical bias, when interpreted by one person for another edification. Anybody challenged with a readaiong disability shold seek help.
The subject manner is seen most often discussed in the interface between those claiming observation of supernatural phenomena contrasted to those who claim no you did not opbserve what you claim. Avoid this wandefring twit who would step in your path.
What benefit does it work for you to engage debate with one who denies your reality without the slightest clue as to what it really is to you. Well unless you are trying yo crack their harboiled egg.
Lastly, one must reflect that the sifting through all the complexities of mere possible events, though supernatural, the possibility of an overwhelming huge potential world of supernatural-momentum is more likely the case. This is a more critical probability than too little.
Your logic seems to work for you. I find no real fault. If there is a weakness it is in effect more probably energetic than you anticipated as you seemed to , partiallyat least, be proving it to yourself.
But caveat emptor,
you turn that key, on and that door, that you have just proved to your own satisfaction is a rightious interface into what only you can prepare yourself for, and by now I must remind you, and curtly so, of that hint of caution I gave you, before, you know, the unsolicited invitation to the caveat emptor.
I disagree. There are many unnatural possiblities that aren’t god(s). The idea of changing what Atheist means is just patently silly. The idea of making magick, ghosts, Bigfoot, Chuluthu, et al, natural, while the only thing preternatural is God is shortsighted, delusional and just wrong.
Granted, as a Naturalistic Atheist, I find it all silly anyhow.
Originally posted by John Mace
IWLN:
If you make the claim that God exists, and accept it w/o any scientific evidence, you cannot then disqualify someone from saying “God is behind the ability of Tarot Cards to predict the future.”. That person’s statement is equally as valid as yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Response by IWLN
John Mace’s logic is faulty. Acceotance of the existence of god is logically unrelated to the qualification of someone’s prediction talents. You can’t qualify or disqualify tarot readers just because tou accept god. A you’ve made the logical assertion you seem to be making the demand to recognioze tarot readers on the same level as the gods. Is this Mace’s intention?
IWLN is on track up to the point where she brings in her famous spoon bender argument that does not logically follow from the systematic sequence presented by Mace. To mix such assertions as indicated is to create an artificial equivalence of a host of related ifs, ands and buts without some sort of verification, organization and complex sifting of the mixed expressions. We might as well link IIWLN’s probaility of her pole vaulting to the moon is not prohibitively improbable for the reason that her acceptence of God’s existence is demonstrably more energetic and coherent than the norm, though I wouldn’t expect that kind of extraordinary talent to be seriously expressed literally.
The bringing of God into the discussion as done by using arbitrary concepts, including tarot forces, covers the lens of scrutiny with gauze in the same sense that even today, Elizebeth Taylor can appear decades younger than an ungauzed depiction of an old lady, to be callous and blunt.
In any event the answer to her rhetorical question is No.
[quote]
Apos, don’t you think that there is a world of difference in the phrasing there? Saying as you put it, “there isn’t sufficient reason to believe it exists”; is already placing a negation on the possiblity of something’s reality. In fact such an attitude I feel leads to the general acceptance, lack of serious research in and general dismissal of, the mysterious or supernatural in regards to scientists.
[quote/]
The faulty logic goes one step deeper. As the words ‘reason and belief’ are used most often around her a “reason to believe” is contradictory as belief is not a natural product of reason. By the time reason has supported some observation one then is in a state of mind that “I saw the UFO” , which is significantly different than “I believe in UFOs”. A lame link would include the case where the UFO spotter and believer are the same. I suppose that under these circumstances belief and reason would share equal billing.
Originally posted by elfje
according to an Atheist, everything is “natural”. The term “supernatural” is a contradiction in terms. it means “above nature”. Everything is part of nature, nothing is above it, since there is no god.
The implications asserted by Rex Dart place arbitrary limitatrions on God, and in fact defines God’s place in the universe, partly in , partly out. Is any one privleged to discard the possibility that God set irreversible limits on her own ability to intervene in natural events , or even to the extent that such activity would be exclusively reserved for God alone, though still below some absolute maximum set by God?
I would like to see some demonstrable proof, like a letter from God, that she broke her promise to me in such a hasyty and unpublicized manner as suggested above.quote:
A more common use of “supernatural” of the manny uses (and don’t forget Alice) is that it is out of the norm of ordinary expectations, like flying inebriated Peruvian llamas.
Originally posted by John Mace
Surely you don’t expect anyone here to believe this as well, do you? Have her send me her stock picks for next week, and we’ll put it to the test.
As I have been going through this thread I have arrived at a plateu here. A clear reading of these two posts indicate a number of persoan reflections that may be unjustified from the analysis of the thos speaking. Unjustified to their stated form and level of belief in this and that.
Rasak Mani seems to infer that the syuperatuiral is untestable in general and i assume from his unambiguous assertion of his Atheism thatGod id untestable, which is an unsupported claim or even axion, both of which tend to mobe Rashal Mani a few more ratchet clicks than a simple transition of Total Skeptic to Parital Skeptic.
There is a tacit assumption in both participants in this exchange of an agreed upon set of reinforcing metaphor
.
Both participants should be made aware of the reality of the common bit of knowledge that in comparing people who pray in churchs being differentiated from people praying in gambling casinos. People who pray in casino;s really mean it.:“Oh dear god just hit my 16 with one of them fives and I am your slave forever, yes I will be your man”.
Perhaps another example will bring us around full circle, or at least we will advance. If you’ve ever spent a day at the race track you will soon discover that as the horses come down the field and approach the finish line the volume intensity of the crowd, mpst certainly committed by wager to one or more winning horses, increases dramatically, and that the reason they are literally screaming their heads off is to make their chosen horse run faster. It works, and sometimes when the winning horse pays $100 fir each $2 bet the win becomes an observed miracle. There is an over all staistical support that such observed manifestation of praying works in every single race that is conducted. a screamer get a win.
Anjd again,“believing in what you see” is a very clear example of redefinition of believing by replacing or elvevating belief to what is seen or to a level of reason. What is wrong with a state of mind that merely admits that, “I see”? and leaves the word ‘belief’ where it belongs?
Simply said, the scientific community isn’t backward in the sense our charge indicates. The scientific community simply is focussed on other things than supernatural penomena. Simply describing the parameters of a supernatural event to a scientist, to be overly general is to onvite a rebuke. What is the value of arguing with a committed opponent? What does he refletion that science is “so backward” offer to he who so complains?
To this observer inthis post, I see a barrier to understanding by accepting backward thinking scientists as some form of recognized editor of reality.
There are many religiopus people, deeply and spiritually religious people that are not so openly recogniozed for the reason they don’t express their belief levels ot their logical structures that prove nothing or internalized praying modes, or meditation.
The very last thing people should ever suggest or support is the elevation of any recognizable group to some status of holder of the cup of truth, especially scienists. I am not quite certain why this element of spiritual structure building seems so common and repeating theme where that named person is given authority by appointment in setting the complainers limits of acceptable evidence of a particlular mode of thinking and when the very complainent promotes the object of that complaint to a position of win by default.
Originally posted by Mhernan
In my scan down this thread, I was focusing on a subject matter, or object of discussion, that would grab my attention. The problem I had was not that there were no exciting and interesting posts, but that there were too many, and that too many of those differed from the rest of the subject matter in only very subtle ways.
I believe your scan down this thread may have taken a detour to another thread. In fear of again kicking your cane out from under you, but nevertheless willing to do so, Kid Yuma, you blew it. Use the quote icon that is at the end of each individual post and then you can respond to each point you want to and get rid of the rest. I am not going to address the evolution issue you brought up since it’s not appropriate to this thread. Try this cite -
EVOLUTION - and maybe it will be more clear to you. If not, ask an atheist, my thought processes are apparently in question, but I’m good.
I searched again for your use of the word, “evolution” by IWLN.and was unable to find it, which means the statement I made linking IWLN to that word did no come from this thread. The oversight was mine unless its buried in some dark corner i am unable to detect. I did see he use of heword 'evoluion" though I did not imply anything about that use other than it being “casual” and not thought out as used as I perceived that use. But I am building sand castles of denial without the quote and can only reply with a claim of unfamiliarity of the way I went through the thread.
My profound regrets for this oversight might be taken as hollow, knowing myself as expediently sorrowful am I when necessity so requires, and being so openly honest about it, that looks of disbelief may tend to be stimulated and might tend undermine the perception of an aceptable level of integrity, so in this instance I claim my relative lack of experience as a complete defense and you can it to the bank, I will never to that again.
Hmm, not to disparge your eloquent style of writing, but couldn’t you just say the same things with about 3/4 less words? Excessive wordage isn’t necessary, and you don’t really need to impress anybody on this message board, only impress them with your arguments.
It is kind of agrevating reading some of your convulted and needlessly twisted sentances. For example:
This paragraph is ONE freaking sentence. And all it says is “Sorry for any errors that are in my post due to lack of experience and or knowledge.”
I think… I have a headache from translating. (though your not nearly as bad as JustThink)
Science has no a priori objection to the existence of “supernatural” phenomena, it simply demands that some sort of evidence be produced for its existence before it can be coherently discussed or studied. Evidence which is not empirical is not evidence.
You seem to have the notion that some sort of supernatural phenomena exits which science is ignoring. Scientists would love to find such phenomena. Unfortunately it never pans out upon systematic inspection.
If a scientist says there is no evidence for cave trolls does that mean the scientist is hostile to cave trolls? Can you give me a reason why science should take assertions of psychic ability any more seriously than cave trolls?
If you object to using scientific method to examine such assertions tghen what method should they use.
Science does not have an anti-supernatural agenda. Believe it or not, plenty of scientists believe in God. It’s a question of what the method requires, not what scientists want to be true.
And guess who corrected that false conclusion (even the conclusion that “races” exist at all).
You guessed it, scientists. Science is self-correcting. That’s the beauty of it. It follows the evidence, not personal bias.
Hmm, not to disparge your eloquent style of writing, but couldn’t you just say the same things with about 3/4 less words? Excessive wordage isn’t necessary, and you don’t really need to impress anybody on this message board, only impress them with your arguments.
[To “not to disparage” and then you “disparage”, such insconsistency.]
It is kind of agrevating reading some of your convulted and needlessly twisted sentances. For example:
quote:
My profound regrets for this oversight might be taken as hollow, knowing myself as expediently sorrowful am I when necessity so requires, and being so openly honest about it, that looks of disbelief may tend to be stimulated and might tend undermine the perception of an aceptable level of integrity, so in this instance I claim my relative lack of experience as a complete defense and you can it to the bank, I will never to that again.
Epimethei=us speaks:
This paragraph is ONE freaking sentence. And all it says is “Sorry for any errors that are in my post due to lack of experience and or knowledge.”
I think… I have a headache from translating. (though your not nearly
[Aspirin, Epimetheus will not ease you translating headache For myself, when I get that into a writing I feel that i have learned a thing or two.]
[Well recognizing convolution as one freaking sentence as you have so eloquently explained to us, why did it take you all that extra stuff of yours ridicule me in fornt of my friends and colleagues.?
Well why didn’t you just go on to the next point of your interest? You are under no obligation to read my convolutions and offer you criticism that was profoundly weak. You probably were intuiting the fact of recognizing guard house rhetoric, an invention uniquely defined for the use of the sincerity challenged. Have you no sensitivity and empathy for those casual wanderers in the of the herd such as I?
OK, we’ve fought and bonded, now we can really get in each others face. Have you met the cane kickwer yet?]
I wasn’t “fighting” as you say, I was requesting that you stop trying to wow people with worthless verbage, it merely clutters the debate, and turns people away from responding to you. My criticism was profoundly weak? Uh, ok. As far as your arguments go, I didn’t bother reading them, I dediced, before you offered me such wonderful advice, to not bother reading your convultions. If you can’t argue in regular English, then you are merely twisting words around and are not offering an actual argument. You are trying to prove to the world that you are saying something without actually saying it.
If you don’t mind me asking another thing- though I am loathe to do so, in fear of you thinking I am “fighting” with you- namely the request of using proper quote tags. [ quote] [ /quote ] and such. Again, not just for myself, but for your “friends and colleagues,” as you so call them.
Oh, and thank you for your forgivness, I was really hoping to receive it. My day will go much smoother now.
I wasn’t suggesting that science dispenses a positive confirmation on anything either. I can understand how that might easily be interpreted as a confirmation of someones beliefs, that are not able to be tested. I merely suggested that we do not have the ability to verify or deny the existences of such phenomena; and furthermore the negative attitude will prevent research into the development of the technology needed to gather the first evidence.
Let me see. You read about my assigning the posts as units in an overall many body entity and you understoob my use of the word schizophrenia as meaning “Multiple personalities.” Did you get the poem right after that,
Roses are red, violets are blue, I’m schizophrenic and so am I.
I amtrusting here that you are correcting a misuse of a word. But from your post you do make a connection that I intended the word to apply to a string of entities, each a part of a single uinit, which is furhter supported by the poem.
As a teacher it is a proud mioment when a student learns. and in the simplest use of words expresses such a complete understandinmg of a moderately complex concept. The only one that gets an A.
Epimetheus, we have communicated, now we can begin to live!
I’m Alice and I can make my words mean anything I want them to mean. Ive got no time to say, hello, goodby, I’m late, I’m late, I’m late.
