Rational Methodology for Identifying Supernatural Intervention

[steve hinrichs]

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.  

[Cletus Nze]

rrr333 wrote: Read http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.pdf

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://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/Homepage.htm

This is sheer NONSENSE - as is ANY notion of the "supernatural"! EVERYTHING is NATURAL - INCLUDING GOD! However, some NATURAL things are not accessible to some people - notably ATHEISTS! That, however, is not logical grounds to reject the existence of those things! MOST of what atheists consider "knowledge" has NEVER been experienced DIRECTLY by themselves - and probably NEVER will be in this lifetime. Nevertheless they regard these things to be true and part of their knowledge. They have CHOSEN to trust the sources of information about these things because they seemed reasonable to them. When they CHOOSE to reject other sources of information which they regard "irrational" they call these "supernatural". All that is in evidence here is THEIR PREJUDICE - nothing more!

[Cletus Nze]

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.  

In other words, what is FAMILIAR to you! Not too long ago, quantum mechanical - and prior to that, statistical mechanical events - were rejected out of hand by EVEN LEADING PHYSICISTS as being contrary to the laws of physics as known AT THE TIME! Atheists would have called them "supernatural" too at that time! The same is true of what atheists are unfamiliar with today! This whole line is reason is absurd and idiotic!

[steve hinrichs]

Prior to the 1900’s before quantum mechanics was developed for physics, there was not a mechanistic description that explained emission spectrum of atoms or the Photoelectric effect so there was a lot of wrong speculation.  Just because scientist made wrong conclusion at that time does not mean it is impossible for there to be valid evidence for the supernatural.  The reasoning in my article uses the basic principle of science (PE) for determining a hypotheses true.  To call this reasoning stupid is essentially calling key reasoning of science stupid. 

[steve hinrichs]

To claim that it is impossible in general for any supernatural or intelligent design claim to not be an argument from ignorance, is invalid criticism.  In fact the claim that there can always be some possible unknown explanation can be used to reject any scientific conclusion about anything.  For instance, one could claim there may be some unknown natural explanation (not the sun) for all the affects we see caused by the sun.  Therefore conclude, the sun may actually not exist but just be an illusion.  Valid criticism of the rationale for substantiation supernatural intervention would not be based on approaches that could also be used to reject scientifically well established natural theories.   So characterization such as “arguments from ignorance” or appealing to “unknown possibilities” without appropriate constraints are not valid criticisms.  Such critics obviously have to greatly reduce their standard for evidence when the evaluate natural claims otherwise they would not believe anything about the natural world.

[steve hinrichs]

If all the stars of the universe collected together and spelt out “God exist”, these unconstrained criticisms could just claim there is some unknown natural cause; therefore, no reason to think God was involved.  When somebody builds such artificial invincible defense, they are not adding to objective process for determining what is true.  Rather they are just making evident their personal preference which they want to protect.  Both atheist and theist are have built these sorts of invincible defenses to protect their personal preferences.

[steve hinrichs]

In the incarnation forum I do present evidence and reasoning that substantiates a supernatural claim.  The evidence implies the supernatural intervened to point to Jesus as the Messiah.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/incarnation/messianic-prophecy-jesus-daniel-2080210.0.html

[steve hinrichs]

This same argument was debated in the following amazon discussion group.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M9TK6UGAX6EO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1J6SM7BMBMAQ3

[jayceeii]

Read http://sites.google.com/site/s2hinrichs/spntid2.pdf

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

I 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.