All you did was state subjective adjectives such as, readable, obtuse, pompous and provided no rational criticism. The reader of my article will obviously be aware that my approach is based on a key logical principal that science uses, proof by elimination.
Drm970 wrote: So, what is the definition of supernatural that is inconsistent with that?
That definition has problems.
We know that light displays contradictory properties. Is it therefore irrational to believe in light?
Would you agree that introducing additional cause where it is not necessary is irrational?
My question then is, can an argument from ignorance ever be valid?
Drm970 wrote: Taking the natural as subset of the supernatural would strike me as semantic trickery. The computer program depends upon the medium upon which it exists, but the computer program is not the medium upon which it exists. It is a bit tricky to separate the supernatural from the natural. The idea is that there are things other than nature as we know it. Such an idea isn't terribly astonishing. We countenance entities in modern physics which would've been taken as supernatural in previous stages of scientific development. However, just because we can take the supernatural and remain it to the "natural" doesn't imply much of anything. I can call a Ford a Lamborghini if I want to. It doesn't change much about what it really is.
Drm970 wrote:
No. I know of no form of rationality on which this would be irrational. Introducing entities which are unnecessary is contrary to Occam's razor. But, Occam's razor is a very sharp instrument, and must be wielded with care. As we know, solipsism would be the best hypothesis according to a careless use of Occam's razor. But clearly there is something insane about solipsism.
No, I don't think so. However, I don't know of many theistic arguments which are actually arguments from ignorance. An argument from ignorance would take the form "If we don't know the explanation for X, then the explanation must be Y." Even the worst theistic arguments generally do not take a form at all like that. Instead, they take the valid form of "No class of explanations C will do in explaining X, therefore, the explanation of X must be of another class of explanations." Such arguments are only bad because they are trivial. They amount to: If not A, then not A. Which isn't terribly interesting.
Insane? Utterly impractical, yes... but I wouldn't be so quick to call it insane.
What word would you prefer, then, to designate any supernatural entities or agents which are not natural?
Oh? I could be mistaken, but I seem to hear quite often arguments along the lines of "abiogenesis is far too unlikely to have occurred naturally, so it must have been intelligently instigated", "Life is far too complex and designed-looking to be explained by evolution", "fine-tuned constants show that our universe was intentionally created for human life by a designer-God" and so forth.
I suppose I would require a technical definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.
10. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved.
These examples do, however, lead us to the first of two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance. The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question.
As someone saying that it is "too improbable..." or "science can't explain..." is relying on solely on current limitations of knowledge, I would say an appeal to ignorance would be what it should properly be called.
Under this impression of "supernatural" would you say Jesus was natural or supernatural during his time on Earth (assuming the Christian scriptures to be accurate in relating His life).
In my pdf, I present objective reasoning for evaluating claims about the supernatural. The reasoning is based on the key logical principal of science, proof by elimination. There are atheist and theists who just prefer their positions for subjective reasons. The reasoning to reject the supernatural because the natural explanation is more simple or less ad-hoc (ocman's razor) and the reasoning of always waiting for possible evidence that will dismiss the supernatural, are approaches the can be used in an unfalsifiable way to dismiss evidence for the supernatural regardless of how objective, or strong the evidence is. Philosepher of science, Popper pointed out the scientifc approaches should be falsifiable.
My approach is the type that the unbiased scientist as described below would follow.
Considering three observers of a hypothetical Guru. The presupposed naturalist, the presupposed super-naturalist and the unbiased scientist. They all sit and watch the Guru flip a supposedly fair two sided coin and the coin keeps landing heads. The more it lands heads the more the presupposed naturalist believes it has heads on both sides. The more it lands heads the more the presupposed super naturalist believes in the super natural powers of the Guru. After the Guru is done the presupposed walk away with their strong opposing beliefs that contradict each other so they could not both be correct, but these two do not ask any further questions. The unbiased scientist is not convinced either way; however, for him the more the coin lands heads the more he wants to check out the coin to see if the super natural is occurring. After the Guru is done he goes up and ask the Guru if he can look at both sides of the coin. Also, he asks the Guru to do the same thing with his own coin he brought that he knew was not rigged. If the Guru still keeps getting heads even with a truly fair two sided coin, then the unbiased scientist becomes convinced that the super natural has intervened. However, if the unbiased scientist discovers a trick of the Guru such as the coin has heads on both sides then he is not convinced the Guru was performing a supernatural event.
I do not think anybody is a perfect Presuppositionalist or unbiased scientist; however, I think a honest thing to do whenever we are developing our beliefs is to honestly ask if am I thinking more like a Presuppositionalist or an unbiased scientist. This should give better insight into oneself as they better understand their own presuppositions and why they hold onto them.
rrr333 wrote: I agree it is not enough for there to be no known natural explantion. Rather according to my method, there must be the reaosniong provided that all possible natural explanation are considered and none of them are plausible. That is what section 2.5 of my pdf addresses.
Reasonable assumptions can be made that limit the number of possibilities to a finite number. For example, if your car is
seen being driving away, it can be assumed if this is a natural phenomenon that a human is driving it away or there is a
remote control device in the car. If you just thoroughly check the car and found no remote control device, then if it occurred
naturally, one could assume a human was driving it away. Since the number of humans is finite, the number of possible
thieves is finite. In this case to determine the actual individual who stole the car, one would have to show that all other
humans except for a certain one was driving the stolen car. If it can be shown no human was in the car and since there is
no remote control device, PE would indicate the supernatural intervened.
rrr333 wrote:The reasoning to reject the supernatural because the natural explanation is more simple or less ad-hoc (ocman's razor) and the reasoning of always waiting for possible evidence that will dismiss the supernatural, are approaches the can be used in an unfalsifiable way to dismiss evidence for the supernatural regardless of how objective, or strong the evidence is.
Give me an example of such evidence.
Given your scenario, I would say the unbiased scientist was not thorough enough. I would say in addition to using another coin, he should also require the guru to perform the same feat in another location.
At this point I must ask you in what way you define supernatural. What if the Guru had discovered some repeatable, verifiable method by which he can generate a force through a mental exercise?
Though the method would not be understood at the time, would this necessarily be supernatural, or just some innate ability of humankind (or perhaps even only this specific man through some mutation) .
I now have a scenario for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3f-WPrKnRU
Criss Angel is a very talented magician. In addition to this instance, where he manages to walk through glass, he also has the impressive ability of levitation.
However, I have seen the levitation trick explained. Very clever, and it was done without using any of the natural tricks I would have considered. However, I would have been wrong to assume it was supernatural, as all of the possible natural methods did not encompass all it could possibly be.
Still, I am yet to hear the explanation for how he walks through glass. I notice that it appears he has something under his shirt. There seems to be no seem in the glass, so it is unlikely that he removes or slides part away and then reinserts it. Obviously he is not moving through it as a liquid, as glass at that temperature is far too brittle. If he increased the temperature that far he would himself come to physical harm, and the paper would burn. I'm guessing that those in the crowd are in on the trick... or at the very least the man on the inside. Video editing is possible, but at least Snopes agrees that it is one, unedited continuous take.
Assuming the video was unedited, would you feel that this was supernatural?
I don't. I believe there was a natural explanation, and that explanation lies behind a thin sheet of paper. Our view of the scene was incomplete. We were withheld key data that is necessary to properly understand the phenomenon witnessed.
I think this is an excellent analogy for all insufficiently understood phenomena. If not a direct hindrance to observation, at the very least ignorance of physical properties and natural principles limits our field of view... and obscures the key to full understanding.
Drm970 wrote: That which is not natural is, well, not natural. So, if one were to eliminate all possible natural explanations, one would be justified in believing in a supernatural explanation. You seem to be confused in that you think "all natural explanations" is equivalent to "all natural explanations I can think of."
Drm970 wrote: That's true. But we cannot possibly know something doesn't have an overdetermined supernatural explanation without being omniscient either. Not much follows.
In the Incarnation forum I do have a post "Messianic Prophecy" where I do provide reasoning to show that I have considered all possible natural explanations. I will not debate it here, but will debate it there. Here is the place to debate the general method not a specifc argument about real evidence.
As explained in Ref. 1, scientist typically go through a process of eliminating false hypothesis. According to proof by elimination "PE", if there is an all-natural theory that explains a certain real event and all other possible natural hypothesis for explaining that certain event are false except for one specific natural hypothesis, then this one remaining non-false natural hypothesis is the correct theory. The approach for identifying supernatural intervention proposed in my article makes use of this logical principle, by just extending it to the case where there is no plausible natural hypothesis. If there is a correct hypothesis and all possible natural hypothesis for explaining a certain real event are false, then there is a logical argument that the cause involves non-natural phenomenon; thus, the supernatural was involved with causing the event to occur.
rrr333 wrote:
PE does not fail. The failure is in the lack of reasoning or evidence to rule out all other hypothesis.
rrr333 wrote:As explained in Ref. 1, scientist typically go through a process of eliminating false hypothesis. According to proof by elimination "PE", if there is an all-natural theory that explains a certain real event and all other possible natural hypothesis for explaining that certain event are false except for one specific natural hypothesis, then this one remaining non-false natural hypothesis is the correct theory. The approach for identifying supernatural intervention proposed in my article makes use of this logical principle, by just extending it to the case where there is no plausible natural hypothesis. If there is a correct hypothesis and all possible natural hypothesis for explaining a certain real event are false, then there is a logical argument that the cause involves non-natural phenomenon; thus, the supernatural was involved with causing the event to occur.
Trying to use PE to prove something true about reality is an approach that really tries to make a case for something about reality with the least amount of assumptions about reality. The two assumption that PE makes is that there is a correct theory about the reality being considered and reality is self-consistent. Without this assumption, it would be impossible to develop a logical argument for anything about reality. Thus, PE involves the most minimal assumptions about reality, in other words, it make the most minimal amount of presuppositions.
Arguments for reality that do not make the most minimal amount of assumptions about reality, presume as true things that may not be necessary for determining the truth about some reality. Presuppositionalism is a category that describes these approaches where extra unnecessary assumptions are made for determining true something about reality. For example, a Presuppositionalist would assume planetary orbits were circular before making sure that the orbits did not follow another pattern such as an ellipse. A Presuppositionalist is one who gives presuppositions priority over the implications of observations. For an extreme example, if one presumed there were six apples in a basket and after seeing there were only four in the basket, still believed there were six in the basket, then he would be thinking as a Presuppositionalist. An unbiased scientist is one who tries to minimize presuppositions and tries as best possible to use logic such as PE and observations to determine the truth about reality. Note the "unbiased" adjective because there are those who claim to be scientists but are biased.
Presuppositionalism is quite common in many different parts of human society. Presuppositionalist often use invincible approaches to maintain their beliefs. A good sign of a Presuppositionalist is an unwillingness to admit to or follow legitimate rational criterion for determining (especially their personally preferred) hypotheses false. Not adhering to the implications of legitimate criterion for determining hypotheses false is an approach that allows one's beliefs to be disconnected from observations of reality that would imply their belief false. This could allow one to maintain their belief regardless of what is real; thus, such an approach would be invincible. This makes such approaches tempting because one can maintain the position they personally prefer. However, such approaches do not involve legitimate reasoning, in fact such approaches avoid legitimate reasoning because they are unfalsifiable, so such approaches are called Artificial Invincible Defenses. Scientific approaches are supposed to be falsifiable and open to consideration of any data that might show a hypothesis wrong. Thus, invincible or unfalsifiable approaches for the hypothesis selection process for determining belief do not deserve to be considered as scientific approaches. Popper is a philosopher who is famous for promoting the idea that the scientific process should be falsifiable (Ref. 6).
Humans are often highly motivated and when the motivation is for a good cause, the motivation can be a good thing. However, motivation can also make one biased in their hypothesis selection process for determining belief. For example, often people want to maintain a certain beliefs for personal reasons because of the consequence from changing their beliefs such as negative emotions. For example, they may want to be able to deny they have a problem such as alcoholism when it would be painful to admit it. Often in these cases in order to maintain their belief, people develop an artificial invincible defense where they can avoid the implications of the evidence. For example, they may claim there is no reason to believe any scientific argument that contradicts their personally preferred beliefs.
If someone is not interested in questioning their presuppositions when they can question them, then it is at least questionable what is their primary motivating interest; a personal interest of wanting to hold onto their presuppositions or an objective interest in determining the truth.
I do not think anybody is a perfect Presuppositionalist or unbiased scientist; however, I think a honest thing to do whenever one is considering their beliefs is to honestly ask if they are thinking more like a Presuppositionalist or an unbiased scientist. This should give better insight into themselves as they better understand their own presuppositions and why they hold onto them.
I think you misunderstand my points of conflict with your argument.
rrr333 wrote:
There are phenomenon such as discrete phenomenon that require just a finite analysis to consider all possible explanations.
rrr333 wrote: There are phenomenon such as continuous phenomenon that could require an infinite analysis or knowledge to consider all possible explanations.
rrr333 wrote:It is true the probability for the supernatural occurring cannot be directly calculated. But by PE it is not required to calculate the probability of the supernatural to determine if the supernatural has intervened. In fact it is common for science in evaluating just natural phenomenon to not calculate the probability for something occurring, rather the probability is calculated for the other natural alternatives occurring. If the other natural alternatives are all shown to have a low probability, then an inference through PE is made that the remaining explanation must be true.
rrr333 wrote: So in the same way supernatural intervention could be inferred in a valid way without directly calculating the probability for the supernatural occurring.
rrr333 wrote:The false reasoning, we do not know everything; therefore, we cannot determine anything is true can be applied to not just the supernatural, but also the natural. Often Religious fundamentalist claim this when they say, “well, the universe may really by just thousands of years old like archbishop usher thought rather than billions, because we do not know everything and we may someday discover something new that proves it.”
rrr333 wrote: A 1 ton object could float up on Earth by command of a Guru and SRH would not believe the supernatural intervened even though it has been verified that the air nor any other natural field of force such as electrical or magnetic caused it.
Excerpt from Ref. 1.
This section discusses what I call the initial probability, but the more technical terminology is the naïve probability or prior probability. This probability is just a basic probability not modified by conditions. It is called the initial probability because it is the first probability calculation. Subsequently it may be adjusted to produce the final probability. There are two different types of basic probabilities which I call the extont and nonextont probability. They are based on the two different types of finite probability sample spaces. Extont probability as explained in Section 4.3.1 is based on a sample space that consists of outcomes that existed. Nonextont probability as explained in Section 4.3.2 is based on a sample space that consist of outcomes that did not necessarily existed, but could have occurred.
The extont probability is based on a sample space that consists of a set of outcomes that occurred or are expected to have occurred. The extont probability is calculated by dividing the number of actual outcomes that qualify as matching by the number of all the outcomes that could have occurred or are expected to have occurred. It is the probability that a certain item is a specific unique item out of possible set of items which does contain that specific unique item. In the following discussion are examples of extont probabilities.
Consider the case where there are 10 balls in a bucket labeled 1 through 10. So these 10 possible outcomes all exist. Suppose you randomly select a ball out of the bucket, the extont probability that it is ball #5 is 10%. In this example there is 100% certainty that ball #5 and the other 9 balls do exist in the bucket so the probability is the extont type.
Consider the case where you see two identical ossuaries both inscribed with Jesus son of Joseph and you know for sure one of them contains the Gospel Jesus. In this case the extont probability that one of them contains the Gospel Jesus is 50%.
The extont probability is the probability of one specific outcome divided by the sum of the probability of all the possible outcomes which do exist or occurred. So the extont probability is a percentage that the probability for one outcome is of a total probability. If the total probability is a measure of all the outcomes that exist or occurred, then the extont probability is a direct measure the % chance of a identifying a specific outcome. Thus, only with extont probability is it appropriate to state the odds such as 2:1 for something being true or 1:2 against something being true.
The nonextont probability is based on a sample space that consists of a set of outcomes that could occur, but did not necessarily occur. The nonextont probability is calculated by dividing the number of potential outcomes that qualify as matching by the number of outcomes that could have occurred. Since the nonextont probability is not based on a sample space of outcomes that existed or occurred, there is no direction relation of the nonextont probability to the chance of something being true. In the following discussion are examples of nonextont probabilities.
Assume no special natural phenomenon occurring. Consider you are investigated a coin and flipped it many times and found it to land 50% of the times head and 50% tales. Then your friend came along and said by his supernatural powers he could make it land heads every time. So you flip it once and it lands head. The chance for this is a nonextont probability of 0.500. So is 0.500 nonextont probability enough evidence to be convinced that your friend is supernaturally causing the coin to land heads? Obviously not because a nonextont probability of 0.500 for an event means the event is just about what is expected to occur in a perfectly random world. What if you flipped it again and it lands head a second time in a row? The chance for this set of events is a nonextont probability of 0.250. Three times would be 0.125 etc .... The chance is one divided by the number of the possible permutations which keep growing as you do more coin flips. We often observe many events with probabilities quite low and do not assume the match was not just a random occurrence.
The following is an example of the value of a nonextont probability that the whole world can appreciate. Plate tectonics or the movement of the continental plates was inferred by probability before there was any known evidence that the continental plates were moving. I have read this was accomplished by calculating a nonextont probability of ~0.000001 (not a extont probability) for the match between the shapes of the continents in how they would have fit together as Pangaea, the original super continent. This is a one time event that has no freedom for biased selection of opportunities for matches, but there would be some subjectivity in interpreting how well the contour of the edges matched. In fact this was the initial clue that got the scientist looking for more evidence for continental plate movement and they sure found plenty of corroborating evidence.
So the nonextont probability is just the probability of a match occurring by random. The value for the nonextont probability is not directly related to something being true. However, the smaller the nonextont probability for a certain hypothesis, the greater the chance for that hypothesis being false. Also, nonextont probability argument strengths can be compared directly be comparing the nonextont probability values.
For both the extont and nonextont probability, the evidence is evaluated based on how well the evidence matches with the item the theory is trying to identify. For the extont probability, the probability calculation is based on a sample space of outcomes that existed or occurred or are expected to have existed or occurred. For the nonextont probability the probability calculation is based on a sample space of outcomes that could have occurred, but did not necessarily occur. This difference makes the meaning of the value for the extont probability quite different from the meaning of the value for the nonextont probability. As explained in Section 4.3.1, the value for the extont probability can be directly related to the chance of a hypothesis being true. As long as the extont probability is less than 0.50 there is no justification for claiming the hypothesis is true. The more the extont probability is over 0.50 and closer to 1.00 the more justification for claiming the hypothesis is true or the greater the argument strength. As explained in Section 4.3.2, the value for the nonextont probability is not directly related to the chance of a hypothesis being true. However, the smaller the nonextont probability for a certain hypothesis, the greater the chance for that hypothesis being false. Thus, the higher the extont probability value, the stronger the argument that something is true and the lower the nonextont probability the stronger the argument that something is false.
The extont and nonextont probability types are the two basic type of probabilities so they cover the two basic ways of probabilistic analysis. Both are important and are suited for addressing different issues. If you are trying to identify something that you know exists, then the extont probability is appropriate because you can calculate the chance of the thing you found is that unique thing of interest. For a sample space of things that exist, one can also calculate a nonextont probability; however, it would not be as useful as the extont probability because the value of the nonextont probability cannot be directly related to the chance that you have actually identified the unique item of interest. If you are trying to check if something exist, then the nonextont probability is more appropriate because it does not assume the thing exists. It is a calculation for the chance of the thing found matching the item of interest. If there is a low nonextont probability of the thing not existing, then an inference can be made that the thing must exists. An extont probability cannot be calculated for the chance of
finding something existing whose probability for existence is unknown, because the total probability for the sample space would not be related to probability for something existing. However, it would be conservative to assume the item of interest does exist and calculate a probability assuming it is part of a sample space of other similar items that are known to exist. Thus, one could calculate a conservative estimate for the extont probability for identifying the item of interest. One could assume the probability for existence which is the Fgj factor mentioned in Section 5.1.1; however, the Fgj value could be arbitrary. The true strength can be no greater than that determined by a correct conservative extont probability calculation.
Inductive reasoning uses probabilities and logic so the arguments typically never have 100% certainty. Deductive reasoning just uses logic so the arguments typically have 100% certainty. However, for any argument about something in reality being true, there is usually always some uncertainty. Since the nonextont probability is not directly related to something being true, the question is how can it be used to determining if something is true. Well the key theory used in science for determining if something is true is proof by elimination (PE). This logical concept is explained fully in Ref. 4 and 20. If there is a theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis for explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then PE implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. For example, if there were 10 different possible hypothesis for explaining a certain event and it was shown that 9 out of the 10 were implausible, implying they were false, then there would be a logical case that the one remaining plausible hypothesis is true.
Science typically does not prove anything true directly. It only shows things false directly by showing an explanation has a low probability so it is implausible. The way to show something true through science is to show all other possible explanations false implying the one remaining explanation must be true. The is called proof be elimination. In dealing with nonextont probabilities there is no definite way to define the % chance of something being true. It is just the chance of something occurring by random. The smaller the chance for something happening, the more likely a theory that it happened by chance is false.
As explained in Ref. 4, in my experience scientist are not even interested in dismissing that a match occurred by random unless the nonextont probability is less than 0.01. A significant match would be less than 0.0001 and a compelling match would be 0.000001. If you want to see an objective way of determining this nonextont probability threshold read my explanation in Ref. 4 Section 2.2.5. It basically depends upon the amount of potential for theories inferred true to contradict that you are willing to accept.
For example, in the coin flipping example in section 4.3.2 of just two heads in a row, obviously the 25% chance of this occurring by random does not mean that the chance of supernatural involvement is 75% or that there is a 75% chance of somehow a double headed coin was snuck in. If you considered 25% chance as the threshold, then if you reran the hypothetical example of two flip coins many times, you would conclude 25% of the time the supernatural intervened and 75% of the time it did not. This shows if you want an approach the does not make false conclusions or contradictions, then you would use very low probability thresholds for determining something false in order to get the point of determining something true by the process of elimination.
If you show an explanation has a logical contradiction, then consider it as having a zero probability for being true and 100% probability for being false. Contradiction cannot be true. Scientist do not like approaches that are likely to produce contradictions because they know that two things that contradict cannot both be true. So they use low probabilities threshold for determining something false, so that way they will not mistakenly infer something is true that is false. This applies to nonextont probabilities, the threshold is different for extont probabilities.
If you are 100% sure that your objective analysis has considered all possible explanations and you have correctly shown that all possible explanation except one has a low nonextont probability, then the nonextont probability is a
measure of how much you have reduced the risk of being wrong that the one remaining explanation is the true explanation.
In Matthew 12:25-29 the Gospel Jesus uses the idea of proof be elimination to respond to the Pharisees who claimed that Jesus cast out demons by using Satan’s power. Jesus explains that a partner of Satan would not cast out Satan’s demons; thus, Jesus power must not be from Satan.
rrr333 wrote:
The definition of the supernatural is obvious, that which is not natural. Whether or not the supernatural is known depends upon whether or not there is evidence for supernatural intervention.
rrr333 wrote:
One can call any hypothetical example arbitrary. The cube example is fine for making the point. It is not wrong to categorize extont and nonextont probabilities. The categories as explained below have a logical basis.
SRH or anybody else can build an invincible defense for dismissing any claim with the reasoning, we do not know everything; therefore, we cannot determine anything is true. This reasoning does not interests scientist because it is unfalsifiable; therefore, I label it an artificial invincible defense that SRH appears to have an interest in using in this discussion so I see no evidence of SRH interest in investigating the question of supernatural intervention scientifically. In Ref 2, I presented the scientific approach for determining if the supernatural has intervened and SRH has dismissed it.
It is true that we cannot know anything with utter certainty... as even our senses are given to failure. Of course solipsism is not a practical philosophy, so it is sensible and reasonable to grant some base assumptions in order to operate in our world.
Given this most fundamental assumption, that our senses on average accurately reflect reality, we can base all empirical science.
We run into a problem, as the supernatural is not a question of observation, but rather causality. A rock flying through the air is not supernatural, but the force ultimately responsible for it may be. Empirical science cannot collect relevant data, so it cannot make any statements regarding relative probabilities.
rrr333 wrote:
If all the stars in the universe except our sun coalesced in the sky and spelt “SRH God exist”, SRH could still dismiss this evidence by an artificial invincible defense. Until SRH presents some approach that is not invincible to even the most extreme hypothetical example, then there is no reason for one to think that SRH has more than an artificial interest in determining if the supernatural has intervened.
Supernatural or not, thats a very intence proability... by chance, anyone know the chance of jesus predicting his resurection n it happning? concidering it was exactly right with how many days ect.
A long shot, but wouldnt supernatural be something Science can never be able to have a reason for? I mean look at the word, Super- more, extream, Natural- occurs in nature, thus bound by physics, quantum physics, math, and in general all of the Laws of the universe. Something that ecced's the abilities of rationalization, that we could never possibly be able to explain, such as how god has always existed, or "popped" into existance. If a tennis ball levitated n hit you in the head, supernatural, science cant explain that... but if someone hurdles a tennis ball at you, u have intertia, gravity, accelleration, mass, ect. in account, heres the kicker, is teh conscience natural? You cant touch it, you cant even describe where it is... its like a non-existant existance...
The definition of the natural events is obvious. Events which fall in the range of the regular patterns predicted by the laws of physics. Obviously, events outside of this range or are very improbable according to the laws of physics would be rationally identified as supernatural events.
rrr333 wrote: Read http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.pdf
And discover the following ConclusionBy use of the logical principle, Proof by Elimination (PE), this article presents a rationale for identifying supernatural intervention by requiring showing that the natural cannot successfully explain the event in question. This means that the event violates deterministic or indeterministic natural theories and cannot be explained by natural intelligence. Violation of deterministic principles present, a clear case that the supernatural has intervened. Violation of indeterministic is not necessarily definite. The strength of the argument depends upon how small the probability is for the best natural explanation. This probability should be determined by a conservative analysis.
Because of the strong desire humans have for purpose, it is natural to investigate if there is evidence that indicates if a supernatural intelligence has a purpose for humans. Religions typically claim there is, so the methodology provided in this article provides a rational basis to investigate their supernatural claims and others. If claims for the intervention of the supernatural can be shown to be successfully explained naturally, then there is no rational basis for claiming the supernatural has intervened.
The approach presented in this article uses PE a key logical principle used in science. The approach provides a basis to critic and potentially dismiss claims because it puts a priority on the natural explanation if it is successful and requires probability estimates to be conservative; thus, the approach is falsifiable; therefore, deserves being considered as scientific.
The strongest case from nature known by the author comes from the cosmological arguments in Section 4.3. The strongest case from religion known by the author comes from Section 4.1.2.
My webpage http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/Homepage.htm
rrr333 wrote:The definition of the natural events is obvious. Events which fall in the range of the regular patterns predicted by the laws of physics. Obviously, events outside of this range or are very improbable according to the laws of physics would be rationally identified as supernatural events.
Read http://sites.google.com/site/s2hinrichs/spntid2.pdfI don’t think you need to worry about proving something was a miracle. There just aren’t any, beyond the “ordinary” miracles of great body and fantastic planet, that all take for granted. The Lord doesn’t do miracles, the angels don’t do miracles, the humans certainly don’t do miracles, and the Holy Spirit or Invisible God also does not do these “special miracles.” What you do need to worry about, is human greed and lust for domination, that drives them to believe in miracles and to believe themselves imbued with occult powers, including through prayer. An expectation for miracles cannot be rooted out of the human mind it seems, but it turns out it is from lack of true appreciation for “ordinary” miracles.
And discover the following Conclusion
By use of the logical principle, Proof by Elimination (PE), this article presents a rationale for identifying supernatural intervention by requiring showing that the natural cannot successfully explain the event in question. This means that the event violates deterministic or indeterministic natural theories and cannot be explained by natural intelligence. Violation of deterministic principles present, a clear case that the supernatural has intervened. Violation of indeterministic is not necessarily definite. The strength of the argument depends upon how small the probability is for the best natural explanation. This probability should be determined by a conservative analysis.
Because of the strong desire humans have for purpose, it is natural to investigate if there is evidence that indicates if a supernatural intelligence has a purpose for humans. Religions typically claim there is, so the methodology provided in this article provides a rational basis to investigate their supernatural claims and others. If claims for the intervention of the supernatural can be shown to be successfully explained naturally, then there is no rational basis for claiming the supernatural has intervened.
The approach presented in this article uses PE a key logical principle used in science. The approach provides a basis to critic and potentially dismiss claims because it puts a priority on the natural explanation if it is successful and requires probability estimates to be conservative; thus, the approach is falsifiable; therefore, deserves being considered as scientific.
The strongest case from nature known by the author comes from the cosmological arguments in Section 4.3. The strongest case from religion known by the author comes from Section 4.1.2.
My webpage http://sites.google.com/site/s2hinrichs/home