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.