Except we have no evidence that “spirit” exists, that it is the “essence of man”, that we even have an essence, or that it can be used to investigate things.
I’m not talking about testing a hypothesis, but rather building one. How to test a supernatural hypothesis would depend on what it was and the evidence it was based on. Testing someone who claimed to be able to reliably influence the roll of dice would be very different from testing the random appearance of ghosts. The issue at hand here is when is it reasonable to posit a supernatural hypothesis.
It is also possible that all the atoms in my monitor would simulaneously move five feet to the left. However the expected time to wait until this happens is much greater than the lifetime of the universe. At a certain point a hypothesis with unknown probability wins over one with probability so low as to be effectively zero. (Much lower than the coincidences we typically see.)
And while we cannot observe god’s kingdom, those who observed Jesus also observed the miracles and the resurrection, right? Isn’t the importance of the resurrection partially to serve as evidence that what Jesus claimed was true? Isn’t this evidence that leads some Christians to adopt the supernatural hypothesis of Christianity? (I say some since some might be affected by what they feel is direct revelation.)
Once again, you have confused a lack of scientific evidence with a lack of evidence. They are not the same. I have plenty of evidence to satisfy myself that the spirit exists, and that it is the essence of man. You might choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 2 because of the numerous times you’ve tested it and found it to be accurate. But I choose to believe it because of the sort of work done by Whitehead and Russell. They proved it is true. Science will never be able to do so.
It is always reasonable to posit one, and reasonable to test it. But not with science. You don’t want theologians to test science with prayer, do you? Why would you insist on testing faith with test tubes?
The probablity that you will observe the supernatural is exactly zero. Any natural event, no matter how improbable, is more probable than that.
It is indeed. In fact, Jesus pleaded that if people would not believe because of the sheer logic of it, then they consider believing because of the miracles He did. But I do not trust my eyes for matters of anything other than trivial importance. They are too easily fooled. While the miracles might impel, they certainly do not compel, and likely amount to nothing more than a technological mastery of quantum level events.
The Bible and the story of Jesus are only one tool to point us in the direction of understanding the mysterious something more, or perhaps to even begin to wonder about the something more. Jesus said, even if you have the desire to have faith.
I don’t believe the story of Jesus has to be historically accurate for it to prompt that looking for the spirit. It seems to me that each of us has subjective reasons for embracing what we believe and don’t believe. The process of what we embrace and what we let go or reject is unique for each of us. For some it leads to accepting popular traditional religion as part of the process. That includes the supernatural mythology it contains.
Huh? I said, “if something exists and if we have phsycial evidence that it exists, it’s a proper object of study for naturalists.” Something that does not exist does not constitute a counterexample. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Daniel
I’m getting at the fact that exactly what existence is is a matter of some controversy, and has been for more than two thousand years, which I thought the link I gave would make clear. You seem to be saying that two and width do not exist. If so, then you have merely demonstrated that the supernatural (two and width) does indeed interact with the natural (stones and wheelbase) on a daily basis. It is not at all clear that only physical things exist, which you are treating axiomatically. It is, as I said in my first post, a premise that I reject. Lots of people reject it. It seems fair to me that we first discuss the nature of existence before we declare that this exists or that doesn’t. If we mean two different things by the term, then it would facilitate the discussion to clear that up.
Such as the life and death of yourself or your loved ones?
May we clear up the equivocation? If by life and death you mean the activation or deactivation of cellular replication, yes. There is no life in the atoms. The whole history and future of the universe is a symphony of death in slow diminuendo.
It’s in the same place as the number three.
No
How can there be death without life?
The same way there can be darkness without light. That’s why, again, I want to clear up the equivocation. These terms have many meanings, and especially in a context like this.
I would think that there could be no darkness without light, or the perhaps the memory of light, as contrast. Is it dark for the congenitally blind?
Why not? Bring them on - though I don’t quite know what testing by prayer means. Perhaps it means prayer can cause something to violate the laws of physics.
Not when faith says something like God loves us. But if Jim Bob the faith healer says that faith makes the lame walk, I surely want to test that. If there is faith that those in the church of your choice have better lives, I want to test that. As long as faith makes claims that have meaning in the physical world, I want to test them.
Are you still saying that I claim we can directly observe the supernatural (which I’m not) or is the claim that there is zero probability that the supernatural will impact the natural world. Best as I can observe, I agree, but I wasn’t aware you had become one of us materialists. Or have you become an extreme deist?
Okay… What I want to know is, how did I become the most religious person in the thread? ;j
I call this the “There is no God and Jesus is his Son” syndrome. 
Lib is more of a traditional Christian than you (or at least I thought so.) I realize that people take different messages from the Bible, and the percentage of it thought to be accurate varies wildly.
Really, this thread is not going at all as I expected - it is far more interesting. I never thought that so few people would be willing to defend the supernatural. Ya never know.
No I don’t. YOU seem to be getting at that, specifically when you say,
You offered these as counterexamples for my assertion that “if something exists and if we have phsycial evidence that it exists, it’s a proper object of study for naturalists.” Entities that do not exist cannot disprove this assertion.
If you’d like to revise your earlier claim, such that two and width do exist, that’s cool, but at least let me know whether they exist or not, in your belief.
Daniel
Dude, Ninjas ALWAYS beat pirates. On the hierarchy of Rogues Ninjas are at the top, and Pirates are down near the bottom. One can be a high level pirate, but a first level ninja is like a bajillionth level pirate. Ninja Christ can assimilate amongst pirates, but Pirate Christ would be spotted immediately amongst Ninjas.
Actually there are some interesting ideas about aliens from Sirius seeding Earth. That of course is something that I’m down with as a concept, but it’s a far more limited conception of God. Certainly a creator race is something that is plausible, if not necessarily true, the idea of God I am working with though is beyond an alien with advanced technology, it would be the intelligence that created those aliens with that advanced technology, and the thing that created them and the thing that created them. Basically the intelligent force that guided the chaotic energy into forms capable of being perceived after the Big Bang. The idea that I am going with is consciousness itself, before it is broken down into smaller chunks. IE the Hierarchy of consciousness, and not something that exists within that hierarchy.
BTW just to put things into perspective, a lot of these fantastic ideas are not something I necessarily believe in, they are more things that are interesting concepts that I see no reason to rule out simply because I cannot confirm them.
That’s why I think that the whole idea of the supernatural is a silly semantic argument. It’s based on a primitive thought pattern that perceives things outside of it’s phenomenalogical field as being outside of nature, which is a very primitive/solipsistic view of the universe IMO.
Erek
No, one can ask “How did God do it?”
Erek
I don’t think that is going on at all. When the first person learns something, he has filtered out all the dead ends, so the second person has a much easier time of it. If the first person really understands it, then he can teach it fairly well. I don’t know if you have had this experience, but last year I figured out something about a certain type of failed chip, which no one has understood before. I can’t even imagine why it took me a year to see this, it is so obvious now. Plus, I’ve seen the light come on in other people I have given talks to. One fairly famous guy who was my session chair when I presented this paper was explaining it to someone else, and he got it. We had a meeting with a vendor, and other people from my company, who I didn’t think saw it, clearly had gotten it too. No shared thoughts going on, just a meme being transmitted.
Got any other evidence? I clearly don’t buy that set.
I think that was what I was saying. The utility of the term is to talk about things that violate natural laws without invalidating the laws.
I agree that your god tag changes all the time. In fact the mswas internet is different from the Voyager internet since we inhabit different parts of it, and probably have seen pieces the other has not. Our understanding of how it works is way different, as is our experience in using it.
Oddly, you keep skipping the gist of each post, and responding to the dependent metaphor; therefore, I’m going to say this time only that we should clear up what you mean be life and death. Please do so.