E-Sabbath:You are still missing the point here.If something exists which violates the physical laws…the very moment such a thing exists, so do those laws CEASE to exist(therefore no violation of those laws has occured since they did not actually exist in the first place).Furthermore, this leaves us with the “anything is possible” or limitless model of the universe.In such a universe it is impossible to know ANYTHING.We could not discern whether we were nurturing children or slaughtering our grandparents or whether we even existed!We could make NO progress and there would be no rational reason to do or attempt to understand anything!
The rational position is not that “anything is possible” but rather that we do not yet know what the exact limitations/boundries of our universe are!Science is not about establishing “certainties” so much as it is about determining likelihoods.The very fact that no claim can be disproven is the reason we dismiss the least likely claims(gremlins, fairies, gods, magic, genies etc.) as “false”(for all intents and purposes).It gets us no where to nitpick and say “well, unicorns MIGHT exist!” when we have no reason to think they do and ample reason to say these are made up things!
If it allows you to sleep easier then replace every instance of “impossible”(and variations) in our arguments with “So highly unlikely as to be unworthy of serious concern”.The fact remains that gods, fairies, magic, ghosts etc. are as close to impossible as things get.You can call it “materialist assumptions” or whatever you want but I am quite certain you will not be spraying “gremlin repellent” on your car’s brake lines anytime soon anymore than I will.
Almost completely right, GodlessHeretic. My only quibble: the laws don’t become invalid when they’re contradicted. It’s just that our ideas of what the laws are was incorrect. The actual principles are timeless.
Oh well…I was close.
JThunder:I also noticed while rereading posts in this thread an dependence on dictionaries to supply meanings.Dictionaires provide usages, not meanings.Words constantly shift meaning with context and usage and the dictionary is not some authoritative source for word meanings.
Most likely, if something happened beyong the currently understood laws of physics, we would modify our understanding, perhaps introducing the “Laws of God” or somesuch.
Now, it is ALSO possible that the entity not only operates outside the currently understood laws of nature, it also operates outside the laws of logic, and therefore we would not even be able to construct “Laws of God”. However, if this were the case, it would be impossible to know God, or have some sort of understanding of these processes more than the unenlightened person.
Pretty much, yep. Scary thought, isn’t it? As far as I can tell, however, that’s what it would take for something to be truly supernatural.
It’s a very hard concept to consider analytically, and it plunges humanity back into the rough position of the middle of the Dark Ages, from a conceptual point of view. Which is where a lot of people appear to live, such as Leroy.
So… the best definition of a supernatural event: Unknown, unknowable, but seen and remembered? Is that what it would take for something to be truly beyond natural law? It sounds sort of like faith, really… which is where I suppose it should wind up.
Guys, Godless, calm down. I’m trying to pin the butterfly in the box, not arguing that Praagh can talk to the dead. I just thought it’d be an interesting intellectual exercise to try to point out exactly what supernatural means, as opposed to simply denying the word has a meaning. Either it has a meaning, or science can explain everything, is the way I see it. So the question is, what is it impossible for science to define and explain? Something that violates the structure of the concept science, right? So what would you use to break the concept?
All discussions about the supernatural is in any orientation irrational and non-sensical and illogical; because the discussants belong to the natural order, and by their own definition and terminology, the superantural is super nature. How then can nature deal with supernature? unless they are engaged in an exercise of futility and self-fakery. Well, at least it keeps their minds busy or entertained but not profitably, though. At any rate, they do derive some kind of consolation; shall we call it in Spanish, “consuelo de bobo”?
Ordinarily I think that citing dictionary definitions in arguments like this is pretty pointless. After all, a dictionary only shows that the word and usage of that word exist, not that the actual “thing” itself exists. Take for example the word “unicorn”.
But when I checked out “supernatural” at dictionay.com I noticed some intersting things.
From their site:
(the bolding is mine) First, I think that when some people say “supernatural” they really mean “preternatural”. Events like the “dark day” mentioned above really happened yet APPEAR unexplainable to the masses. Still, it is within the realm of nature and thus, not supernatural.
Now consider the word “established” highlighted above. If we accept this usage of supernatural then it is possible for all of us (well, most of us anyway) to come to a consensus because supernatural is only what is beyond the currently understood laws of the universe. In this sense supernatural represents the x-factor if you will-- or that which is real but which has not yet become known to humankind. The instant this x-factor becomes known to us, it moves from the supernatural to the natural.
Now consider the idea of the resurrection of the dead being supernatural. Again, resurrection is something either impossible and non-existent, or possible, but beyond our current underatanding of universal laws. It could be considered convenient to have a term (supernatural) for events in this limbo. But we should recognize that this term is only a convenience, not an existential truth. For inevitably, resurrection of the dead is EITHER-- non-existent, or existent and natural but as of yet unexplained.
Now I’m even confusing myself. But hopefully someone has recognized the bridge I am trying to build.
In summary-- “supernatural” is simply another term for the unknown. But since even the unknown (and the unknowable) are within the laws of nature (because they both exist) the word is not technically accurate as nothing can exist outside of nature (nature is all). Or in other words, show me a god or a faerie, and I can show you that it is part of nature.
Snopes does NOT say that it didn’t happen. It merely debunks the popular claim that NASA found direct evidence of this missing day. This is a far cry from proving that the even in question never occured.
Not true. If you at least skim through the entire commentary on this urban legend, it’s pointed out in the last few paragraphs that there could be no way of astronomically determining “missing days” since we have no Absolute reference point beyond our own position in spacetime.
I think lekatt was referring to spontaneous learning, the kind that skips all the trial and error shit. Essentially I think s/he was refering to people who have this inate ability to play complex piano pieces without ever before having touched a keyboard.
Which does not fit into our current models of how humans learn complex tasks. But as far as I know, inate piano knowledge is just heresay. Never saw anyone do it, never came acrosss a credible account of it happening for real…
Which is NOT the same as saying that it never occured. Note what Snopes actually said:
They said that the discovery of this missing day is implausible, due the lack of an absolute reference point, and that we could not determine this through astronomic observations. This is NOT AT ALL the same as saying that no such event ever occured. It merely means that it would not be detectable.
Which makes it pointless and uninteresting. The thrust of this urban legend isn’t that the sun stood still for a day, but that scientists discovered that it had. They didn’t. We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever in any way that the sun did stand still. You’re technically correct that the event may have happened, but there’s no reason to believe it. It’s technically correct to say that you may be a five-brained lizard or that I may have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my underwear, but there’s no point in doing so.
I would go one step further and claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that in the absence of said evidence, such claims shrivel and die, and that Snopes helpfully removes this bit of extraordinary evidence.
“Also, yes, there are some things that have happened to me, too, that I can’t explain in scientific terms, but that does not mean that they aren’t scientific. Hubby is a dowser of such professional status that he is respected in our community and he gets paid for what he does. I have been with him on dowsing jobs and I have seen him stand in a field (with or without a Y-rod) and he has accurately scoped out where a well ahould go, how far down it will be (to a matter of ten feet), and at times, how much water will be the well’s yeild (5 gallons a minute, say), and he is right every time. So what is that? I’d say he is sensitive to something, but it is not extrasensory in nature, but rather a scientific process like anything else.”
Well (pun intended), you can dig just about anywhere and hit water if you dig far enough. If your husband knows enough about the topography of an area he goes to before hand, there is no reason he can’t know what you claim he divines through dowsing.
