I think you're confusing discovery with construction. Humans discovered that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in the entire universe -- not just our solar system or our galaxy, but the entire universe. We also discovered that humans can't fly like birds, and to this day, no one person had flown in the sky like a bird. There are mechanics in place that sets limits on the workings of the universe. No one can walk on water without camera editing, lol.The point is that we do [not] yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, it’s presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond nature’s laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. — Art48
...declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish. — Art48
I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. Example: if someone says supernatural pixies cause earthquakes, the burden of proof is on them and the burden is impossible to meet.Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft
unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods. — Art48
If we try to define the supernatural as that which occurs outside nature, and we then define nature as everything we can sense, then we're left with a hopeless contradiction if we say that we have sensed the supernatural. — Hanover
unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods. — Art48
Right. :up:when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them — Art48
....; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural". — 180 Proof
It seems to me supernatural is synonymous with necessaeily fictional (i.e. impossible). — 180 Proof
I think that to observe a change in nature which – within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' – could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent, this would imply that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'.How's it known that something is "inconsistent with the laws of nature"? — ItIsWhatItIs
Not at all. If I did, I'd have a burden of proof. But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met.Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft
Isn't this what often leads to something being ruled out and then later accepted in science. For example: people lving near elephants and then some non-African visitors thought that elephants could communicate over long distances - one non-African actually could feel what later was discovered to be the method of communication. I understand that one does not immediately accept things without evidence or sufficient evidence. At the same time ruling out can seem logical. A mere deduction from the known laws. But this can later be overturned when anomalies are found to exist.I think that to observe a change in nature which within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent implies that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'. — 180 Proof
This is true regardless, or? It shouldn't matter what the person claiming X is the case categorizes the phenomenon as. What matters is if there is evidence (for communal acceptance, including scientific acceptance). And it also doesn't matter what others classify something as. Oh, that's supernatural so it can't be true. IOW this could well be a poor categorization and thus a poor deduction.But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. — Art48
people lving near elephants and then some non-African visitors thought that elephants could communicate over long distances - one non-African actually could feel what later was discovered to be the method of communication. — Bylaw
Can we think of any examples of this happening that are beyond myth or anecdote? — Tom Storm
The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met. — Art48
I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. — Art48
f a friend calls and says your house is on fire do you dismiss it because it's anecdotal information? — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.