The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". For example, a thousand years ago, lightening was something that could not be caused, even in principle, by any KNOWN natural event, force, or agent. The OP says we cannot with confidence declare anything supernatural until we know the full extent of what is possible in the natural world. We don't have that knowledge now, and may never.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'. — 180 Proof
If that's the OP's point, then, IMO, then it's based on a profound misunderstanding of how nature must be in order for natural sciences to work. Given that contemporary natural sciences, in fact, do work as intelligible, reliable practices for learning about, experimentally modeling and adapting to aspects (at all scales) of nature, it is self-inconsistent (i.e. impossible) for any natural event, force or agent to cause any fundamental constant of nature to change because the causal efficacy of every natural event, force and agent is dependent on – both enabled and constrained by – the fundamental constants of nature.The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". — Art48
I don't see the relevance of this remark to what I've said.it is self-inconsistent (i.e. impossible) for any natural event, force or agent to cause any fundamental constant of nature to change — 180 Proof
We don't. For 2 or 3 centuries Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as true; warping of space and time appeared "obviously" impossible and outside the realm of natural law.So my point is, in sum, that we know enough today about what is the case in order for us to have known and, even if only in principle, what can and cannot be known (though not, of course, what we will learn). — 180 Proof
Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. — Art48
I don't disagree but I think what the OP says is easier to support, because it, in effect, puts an impossible burden of proof on the person who says something is supernatural; to know something is supernatural we need to know it's beyond all known and yet to be discovered facts about nature. Whereas calling something a cognitive illusion places the burden of proof on the person who calls it an illusion.Definition of Supernatural: ignorance of the mechanics behind a cognitive illusion which is not yet embarrassed by knowledge – and it may never be embarrassed. — Experience of Clarity
Yes. I like the green light/red light analogy. When we see something we cannot explain (like animals falling from the sky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_of_animals), it's better to stop and say we don't understand rather than take that as a green light to go ahead and conclude it's supernatural.If I’ve read you right, I think you would agree with a follow-up sermon — Experience of Clarity
Good point.But the rational argument deconstructs already-established beliefs, concept definitions, and misconstrued readings. From life and career experience, I can say that the success rate of actually reaching someone is very low if they believe in the magic and not the trick and do not share your discipline. — Experience of Clarity
Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish. — Art48
...it, in effect, puts an impossible burden of proof on the person who says something is supernatural — Art48
Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible. — Banno
Can you do any better? — universeness
Yeah, right back at you!Yep. But I'm far from convinced that you can. — Banno
Do you know what 'do better' means?Nothing and infinite are both quite "intelligible". Your comparison with supernatural fails. — Banno
Is exemplification of nothing and infinite demonstrable using anything that currently exists in the natural world? If so, then reveal it, or just keep coming across as the annoying empty vessel that you can be at times. — universeness
Are you referring to your thought processes that are producing your current responses here?This is shite. — Banno
I asked for you to exemplify 'nothing' and 'infinite' so, put the fish back where it belongs, and put the bike back wherever you got it from. Try to pull on your big boy pants, and provide an actual argument.Like saying you can't teach a fish to ride a bicycle, hence fish are nonsense. — Banno
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.