Wrong question. — 180 Proof

Nope. Just one that has gone unanswered.

You say, "good evidence can verify supernatural occurrences."

I ask, "what would 'good evidence' be?" — javra

Good evidence for me would be something like my dad's thumb being brought back (he lost it 60 years ago). Or my mum coming back to life. Not repeatable or rigorous, scientific evidence, but it would do me. But the question for any such event is what precisely does it establish, apart from the extraordinary nature of the event? We can attribute remarkable events to religion or some occult cosmology but there is no necessary connection. Just as a Muslim might say that the world is evidence of a god.

I ask, "can you provide a viable test for anything supernatural?" — javra

You tell me. If you want to discuss science methods with someone I'm not your guy.

Well, as formulated, your question is unanswerable.

:up:

Good evidence for me would be something like my dad's thumb being brought back (he lost it 60 years ago). Or my mum coming back to life. Not repeatable or rigorous, scientific evidence, but it would do me. — Tom Storm

OK, but then it seems you'd be expecting the supernatural to not only be inexplicable given what's currently known about nature but to outright contradict what's already known about nature (distinct from the metaphysical supposition of materialism).

But the question for any such event is what precisely does it establish, apart from the extraordinary nature of the event? — Tom Storm

You mean, for example, what does an instance of clairvoyance establish if at all believed? It would establish that there's more to the universe than meets the eye; in this one case, that clairvoyance can occur.

We can attribute remarkable events to religion or some occult cosmology but there is no necessary connection. — Tom Storm

As contrasted to a necessary connection to an atheistic materialism in which no such events can occur. Of course if any such claims are real they then would debunk the reality of materialism - hence leading to, quote, "religion or some occult cosmology". Isn't that what the big hubbub against anything supernatural is based on?

I ask, "can you provide a viable test for anything supernatural?" — javra

You tell me. If you want to discuss science methods with someone I'm not your guy. — Tom Storm

As a reminder, I've already affirmed my position on this: no such tests are feasible.

If you're not open to it, you reduce yourself to a smart monkey. — Wayfarer

As opposed to, if you are open to it (whatever that could actually mean), a dumb monkey?

It would establish that there's more to the universe than meets the eye; in this one case, that clairvoyance can occur. — javra

You'd have to demonstrate it was clairvoyance first. It would just be an event that has no current explanation.

In the 1997 my mother said she had a sense that my grandma was about to die. She died a few days later. I asked my father just how she knew this was going to happen. He laughed and said she had been saying the same thing to him for a couple of years. My grandma was in her nineties.

There are so many potential rival explanations for any alleged supernatural event - how do you know you have ruled out quotidian explanations first?

As contrasted to a necessary connection to an atheistic materialism in which no such events can occur. — javra

I haven't said they 'can't occur' (how could that be demonstrated?) just that we can't say they have occurred.

You seem to have a thing about atheist materialism. I am not a materialist. My friend, John, a Catholic priest doesn't believe supernatural claims either (apart from the idea of a god) - although he tends to construct his religious stories as allegorical and mystical. Many Christians I have known have been strong skeptics of woo.

As a reminder, I've already affirmed my position on this: no such tests are feasible. — javra

Full circle, huh? I guess I am done too. That was a cool discussion. Thanks.

The supernatural would be some aspect of reality that is apart from the rational/regular nature of the natural world, not merely an unsolved mystery of the natural world. — Relativist

-You are not providing a definition for the supernatural. You are just stating what the supernatural wouldn't be part of.
In my opinion definition is far more meaningful.
Supernatural is the belief and the claim that Process and Agents can be manifested in our reality without being contingent to the laws and the conditions verified by Science.
I.e. the claim that mind properties can manifest in reality non contingent to the functions of a biological brain is an example of a supernatural claim.
Verifying Advanced Properties of matter in the fundamental scale of reality (quantum world) would be evidence for the supernatural.(i.e. finding biological, chemical or mental properties in fundamental particles)
Verifying a causal mechanism in our classical world that doesn't obey the laws of its physical scale would also be evidence for the supernatural (i.e. cases where mind properties alone can act as a cause of an effect outside an organism).

Consider that we don't know what dark matter is, but no knowledgeable person would label it as supernatural.

There is a good reason why we don't consider dark matter to be a supernatural phenomenon. The ability of particles not to reflect light, or generating pulling forces in the universe are basic properties displayed by particles. We just need to investigate the ontology of those physical phenomena.

I haven't said they 'can't occur' (how could that be demonstrated?) just that we can't say they have occurred. — Tom Storm

I gather then that we agree there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them.

That was a cool discussion. Thanks. — Tom Storm

Sure. Ditto.

... there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them. — javra

Thus, they are indistinguishable from fictions.

... there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them. — javra

Thus, they are indistinguishable from fictions. — 180 Proof

Yea. I'm finding it hard to believe that I need to explain this on a philosophy forum to one who seems familiar with philosophical concepts, but so be it:

Fictions are by definition known to be unreal. A known fiction - like Harry Potter - will have universally recognizable proof of being unreal. The typical, known claim of the supernatural does not. Ergo, claims of the supernatural are not indistinguishable from fictions.

They however are, for one example, indistinguishable from claims of certain lesser lifeforms having awareness, or else "qualitative aspects". No universally recognizable proof for or against such claims. This does not signify that the claim "(I hold that) cats have conscious qualitative aspects (like awareness of pain and pleasure)", is indistinguishable from fiction (which is always an intentionally told story known to be unreal).

Or, else - if this is more to your liking - typical claims of the supernatural are indistinguishable from typical claims regarding the existence of extraterrestrial sapient life, including claims of UFOs. Some get conclusively debunked; others don't, and remain possible.

Not "a told story known to be unreal" but a belief regarding what is, or what might be, that cannot - at least as of yet - be conclusively evidenced either true or false.

Or are you claiming that SETI researchers are researching "stories known to be unreal"?

After all, one's holding an opinion of what is and isn't does not of itself make that opinion a universally confirmable fact.

Are UFO's supernatural claims?

I gather then that we agree there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them. — javra

It's an interesting position but I don't think I agree. The most I can say is that we have not established here what would prove or disprove the reality of a supernatural claim. This is not the same thing as saying it can't be done. Nevertheless, if Allah were to present on earth and demonstrate his power, a deity like this would know how to prove its reality. If a faith healer were to raise the dead and restore amputated limbs in good numbers, I would say we would have warrant to believe that something supernatural has taken place.

Are UFO's supernatural claims? — Tom Storm

No. I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims. Belief in neither can be definitely evidenced either true or false given the tools we currently have at out disposal.

If a faith healer were to raise the dead and restore amputated limbs in good numbers, I would say we would have warrant to believe that something supernatural has taken place. — Tom Storm

Are the "good numbers" something that would make these acts commonplace and thereby universally verifiable evidence? How would they then be distinguished from that which is natural - but has so far been undiscovered as natural process? (this without reliance upon materialist metaphysics, of course)

Otherwise, I'll maintain that there will yet be a great deal of skepticism toward the reality of these feats which will claim that not all quotidian explanations have been ruled out. Hence, no definitive evidence.

Besides, there are no supernatural claims that I know of which purport the restoration of amputated limbs ... although advancements in scientific know how could one day lead to such restorations.

Besides, there are no supernatural claims that I know of which purport the restoration of amputated limbs — javra

Indeed. Which is why skeptics often raise this one. We hear a lot about healers curing cancer - but this happens in nature, spontaneous remission, etc. But restoring a limb? Now why would a faith healer be able to vanquish cancer and restore walking, hearing and sight, but not be able to do this? Could it be because this is impossible to fake (outside of a one-off conjuring trick that when examined collapses)?

I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims. Belief in neither can be definitely evidenced either true or false given the tools we currently have at out disposal. — javra

In part. Would you not think that if a UFO arrived on earth, (say on top of the Capitol Building) with aliens pouring out of it we would very quickly have sufficient warrant? Would not replicability and testability be superfluous?

In part. Would you not think that if a UFO arrived on earth, (say on top of the capitol building) with aliens pouring out of it we would very quickly have sufficient warrant? Would not replicability and testability be superfluous? — Tom Storm

Same thing could be asked of the Allah example you previously mentioned.

Indeed.

So then why "in part" rather then "in whole"? Philosophically speaking. Hence, other than an ingrained opinion/dogma regarding what can and can't be.

So then why "in part" rather then "in whole"? — javra

Can you clarify your question?

My question addresses this reply of yours:

I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims. Belief in neither can be definitely evidenced either true or false given the tools we currently have at out disposal. — javra

In part. Would you not think that if a UFO arrived on earth, (say on top of the capitol building) with aliens pouring out of it we would very quickly have sufficient warrant? Would not replicability and testability be superfluous? — Tom Storm

This seems obvious to me. If we are talking about modest supernatural claims like 'my mum appeared to me as a ghost' then what you say is true. If the event is huge - let's say Jesus showing up and all the dead rising from their graves - we would have almost no reason to doubt it.

Right. So what is the epistemological difference (the "in part" aspect) between claims of the supernatural and claims of extraterrestrial intelligence?

Even if the supernatural (correction -or UFOs) are true this does not mean that every claim is true. People can still have hallucinations, mental illness, drug induced episodes, be hypnotised, mistaken or in some other way in error.

Right. So what is the epistemological difference (the "in part" aspect) between claims of the supernatural and claims of extraterrestrial intelligence? — javra

Are we debating this? Probably none. I wasn't trying to make an argument about this - clumsy writing.

Even if the supernatural is true this does not mean that every claim is true. People can still have hallucinations, mental illness, drug induced episodes, be hypnotised, mistaken or in some other way mistaken. — Tom Storm

Made me giggle a little. The exact same can be said of claims of extraterrestrial intelligence. Are you not familiar with people walking about with tinfoil hats to protect against them aliens' thoughts?

Right. So what is the epistemological difference (the "in part" aspect) between claims of the supernatural and claims of extraterrestrial intelligence? — javra

Are we debating this? Probably none. — Tom Storm

It would seem as though we agree, then. If so, then no debate.

Made me giggle a little. The exact same can be said of claims of extraterrestrial intelligence. Are you not familiar with people walking about with tinfoil hats to protect against them alien's thoughts? — javra

Of course - I should have included UFO's but I had moved on from that part.

So are we cool then ... or ought we tussle some more about something regarding the issue of the supernatural? :grin:

For my part I've said what I had to say.

We're good. You've helped me clarify my thinking. Cheers.

Hey, it was good debating with you.

I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims... — javra

... which are in turn epistemologically indistinguishable from fictions.

The implausibility of a claim X is a function of, is directly proportional to, the improbability of X.

When an improobable event occurs, there are two ways to respond to it:

1. Our understanding (of the universe) is flawed; we need to scrap/modify our theories to accommodate the Black Swan Event. Science.

2. Our understanding (of the universe) is perfect; the Black Swan Event was effected by a supernatural force/being. Religion.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

I think quite a lot of things become problematic without a concept of the supernatural or "beyond nature"

One issue is morality which used to be considered God's/gods laws. In nature nothing is right or wrong things just can happen or can't happen. This is why philosophy's like logical positivity and empiricism undermined things like moral statements an any statement that didn't just state a fact or observation.

Societal norms, concepts like ownership become more like useful games/fictions arbitrarily enforced by humans with no law like or logical legitimacy

It also effects logic and mathematics which appear to have no realm to exist in.

Subjective mental states including thoughts also appear to have no realm to exist in and no causal mechanism. We cannot see how the brain causes minds with some kind of causal necessity or mechanism. How do symbols work and language get its meaning?