Given the premise of your question does not convey what I've stated — 180 Proof

So state it differently then so that your meaning is more transparent. You cant read for your readers, but your readers can't write for you either.

Okay. Edited for typos. @ItIsWhatItIs

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/787051

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

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.

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

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.

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). To my mind, a fundamentally inexplicable occurance deemed "supernatural" would invalidate knowledge itself just as inferring from contradictions invalidate arguments (via the principle of explosion). If "the supernatural", then nature is unintelligible and its regularities (i.e. order, law-likeness) are nothing but cognitive illusions or a metacognitive bias.

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

I don't see the relevance of this remark to what I've said.

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

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.

Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. — Art48

Can't see how that works.

Seems to me that if something happens that is contrary to some posited law of nature, then the law is wrong.

So the choice then is to fall to your knees in prayer, or to do some further testing and change your hypothesis.

Which you choose seems to be a measure of character.

:ok:

Reading the comments, it is easy to lose sight of your OP. Your nuanced approach has been interestingly provocative.

Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change “magic” to “supernatural” and you have the point of this post. ~ Art48

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. ~ Art48

Definition of Supernatural: ignorance of the mechanics behind a cognitive illusion which is not yet embarrassed by knowledge – and it may never be embarrassed. That is my take on what you are saying. The OP is less about the supernatural and more about human progress from one ignorance-ceiling to another, and we can too easily think of the undeniability of our latest ignorance-ceiling as a “solid basis” upon which we build a case for the “supernatural.” This would be arguing from ignorance.

If I’ve read you right, I think you would agree with a follow-up sermon: why do we use the word “supernatural” at all when the word “ignorance” is closer to the point? “Ignorance” is a superior term in the context of philosophy or science because it is a red flag: we have problems to solve. Making it our goal to restrict our efforts to those problems which have the higher probability of yielding to mechanical description, we prioritize intelligibility over unintelligibility. However, the word, “supernatural,” when it does not risk declaring a specific exception to cause-effect interpretations but only confesses that we cannot really know of any such exception, prioritizes unintelligibility over intelligibility. The word “supernatural” is too often a green light on the other side of an impassable brick wall. A red light would serve us better.

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

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.

If I’ve read you right, I think you would agree with a follow-up sermon — 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.

“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.”

It went without saying in your OP that the burden of proof is on the one who advocates the “supernatural.” For good reason, it didn’t need to be said. I liked the emphasis provided by your approach: what was explicit was the magic trick played on Thor – the mechanical engineering of his belief.

You separate concept from behavior with, “Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.”

Along this line of reasoning, I appreciate your use of “magic” in your OP. It is noteworthy that, for Thor, the mechanical execution was pre-belief. In contrast, arguing against a believer in the “Supernatural” begins post-belief – or else there would be no debate.

As for presenting the argument before a third-party judge, correctly assigning the burden of proof is a winning strategy. 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. (It is humiliating to accept the mechanics behind one’s own duping. Consequently, “devotion” rises to the degree necessary to resist awareness of the absurdity of “one’s own” belief. The superiority of the “Big Lie” over the small one is frighteningly real.)

Society cannot solve problems that are not seen. If “cleaning the lens” is the priority, we need to deal with the formation of illusions at the very beginning. We need to interrupt the magic shows. But of course in exposing the mechanics behind the deceit, we will win fewer arguments because we will have precluded the need for them.

Idk how you would have access to something outside of nature or what that could possibly even mean. If someone were to demonstrate something they considered supernatural it would have to be extant in the natural world, thus, the concept is practically useless.

Agree -- and tweak your last sentence for a different take: The concept is rationally unsustainable, but practically useful: faulty “reasoning” as behavior holds a herd together.

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

Good point.

:up:

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

Again, isn't claiming something as supernatural, by that very fact, claiming it to be unintelligible?

We might proceed by always asking, how could we tell that some event is supernatural? And the answer is, we can't. Given any posited supernatural event, we can modify our understanding of the laws of nature in order to render the event understandable.

Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible.

Given any posited supernatural event, we can modify our understanding of the laws of nature in order to render the event understandable.

Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible. — Banno

Nice. :up:

No, obvious.

What advocates of "supernature' want is to say that some events are acts of volition by unusual beings - gods, ghosts or ghouls. But showing an event to be an act is itself problematic. Yet that's the way the analysis here must go if it is to progress beyond mere advocacy.

Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible. — Banno

All such terms are just projections of the human ability to be completely illogical, an ability which DOES exist. As you say, any discovered supernatural, would become instantly natural. The term 'nothing' or 'infinite' are just as unintelligible. But, 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators, same as god, they have no more value than that.

"Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible." — Banno

"…., 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators ..." ~ universeness

These are two different stops on the same tour. Intelligibility depends upon the perspective anchoring the point in question.

Of two people who have just purchased a falsified map it is the one who lifts up his head and looks for a real-world landmark who is confused first.

The confused one declares the map unintelligible, while the other mistakes his failure to test the map as the map’s “intelligibility.” So ironically, the confused one, in the very understanding of the map’s unintelligibility, is relatively closer to an intelligible explanation of the problem with the map.

The confused one looks up from the map again and tries to find a landmark that should be to the East. It is not there, but to the West. This attempted real-world application provides an intelligible demonstration of how it can be understood that the map is unintelligible: it clearly fails to orient the map-reader to the destination. Importantly, the reason why the map is unintelligible is itself intelligible.

Art48’s statement:““Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.”

What the map was supposed to do is intelligible. But for the purpose of actually orienting ourselves to our destination, it is unintelligible. The demonstration of the problem with the map is intelligible. What “Supernatural” as a concept was supposed to do is intelligible. But “If someone were to demonstrate something they considered supernatural it would have to be extant in the natural world,”( ~ GTTRPNK) The attempted proof or stated definition is easily shown to be unintelligible by GTTRPNK’s intelligible refutation. “The notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible."[ Banno] "….,and [this] 'unintelligib[ility],' EXISTS as a[n intelligible] 'notion.'“ [universeness]

I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc.
One of the rules of reason is 'non-contradiction.' A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map.
Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!

So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible!
The fact that unintelligible exists as a concept, should not attract anyone to it.
Living in a cave, waiting for a deity to communicate with you, would be a waste of life.
The unintelligibility of the existence of god/supernaturals, should be enough for any rational human to not waste themselves, via theistic or theosophistic dalliances.

Agree with the notion that any act seen as a violation of natural law, does not constitute that it is supernatural but merely that our current scientific frameworks lack the explanatory power.

The term 'nothing' or 'infinite' are just as unintelligible. — universeness

Rubbish.

Rubbish. — Banno

Just like your response then? Can you do any better?

Can you do any better? — universeness

Yep. But I'm far from convinced that you can.

Nothing and infinite are both quite "intelligible". Your comparison with supernatural fails.


The map-territory analog only works sometimes. In your account, the map was purchased, which ignores the art of cartography.

I suppose something is "supernatural" if it is found in the territory but not in the map. Your map-viewers are passive, and hence puzzled, but our cartographers will get out their pencil and adapt the map to fit what they see.

There is nothing in the territory that cannot be added to the map.

There is nothing that counts as "supernatural".

Yep. But I'm far from convinced that you can. — Banno

Yeah, right back at you!

Nothing and infinite are both quite "intelligible". Your comparison with supernatural fails. — Banno

Do you know what 'do better' means?
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.

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

This is shite. Like saying you can't teach a fish to ride a bicycle, hence fish are nonsense.

This is shite. — Banno

Are you referring to your thought processes that are producing your current responses here?

Like saying you can't teach a fish to ride a bicycle, hence fish are nonsense. — 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.

If you don't have a good grasp of infinity, nor of nothing, then look 'em up on the interwebs. You can learn all sorts of cool stuff there.

But don't pretend that they are unintelligible just for rhetorical purposes, on a philosophy site, and then bitch when you are called out.

“I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc.” ~ universeness

The use of the word “compare” is equivocal, but in either usage it fails to deal with my prior post in a meaningful way. With a “comparison” we must find parallel elements. What are we comparing?

1. Are we to compare the severity of the social damage with the mediocrity of my chosen metaphor? This would then suggest that we must supply a superior metaphor. But this is probably not what was meant because no substitute was then offered. If such a comparison was intended, please offer a substitute.
2. Are we to compare the evaluation process with the target of the process and conclude with the removal of the evaluation process itself? This would be irrational. But this, so far, is the best explanation for your later arguments, which gut my original argument of an evaluation process.

What did you mean with the word, “compare”? Although its use is awkward, perhaps you meant some reasoning akin to “a six-foot tape measure does not compare when measuring a seven-foot tall NBA player.” If so, then I must get a more suitable tape measure. If there is no substitute intended, then using the inadequacy of the shorter tape measure to “compare” with the taller target as a reason to eliminate the use of measuring devices, as such, will then end with the declaration of “immeasurability.” But if I throw away tape measures as such, my claim of immeasurability is a result of my own manipulation of the original question. “How tall is the NBA player?” requires a real-world process of evaluation external to the NBA player. The “measuring process” is indispensable to resolving the issue.

Likewise, “How intelligible is my argument?” requires a real-world processor, in this case, a human processor in the act of processing. When rendering some argument intelligible something happens in the real world. It is a mechanical event with a before and an after. Intelligibility is in no way embedded in either the medium or the code etched into it. It requires a human processor processing. In reading, it’s not extracted from the text so much as it is extracted by the human processor as stimulated by the text. Your post continues:

“A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map.” ~ universeness

So far so good, but as you admit, that was my argument, but next we are going to throw away the appeal to reality, like the map reader who did not check for landmarks. But this is not just repeating my argument; it is repeating my argument as if a rebuttal. Below, the phrase “such is not the same” refers to what difference from the sentence above? To one which is gutted of the appeal to reality …

“Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!
So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible!” ~ universeness

What you consider new and improved about your version removes from consideration the appeal to the real world and to real human processors. The passage guts the concept of its relevance to reality in the same way that the duped map-reader in my post has not conferred with reality. If you remove the elements that make that appeal to reality, you can, in this manipulation, declare your own new version to be “unintelligible.” Somehow you consider the inadequate appeal to reality as an objection to my presentation and not itself, as you’ve written it, a demonstration of one of my points.

Where is your disagreement?

“The map-territory analog only works sometimes. In your account, the map was purchased, which ignores the art of cartography.” ~ Banno

Introducing someone skilled in the art of cartography would not change the outcome of the demonstration. Either character could have been a cartographer.

“I suppose something is ‘supernatural’ if it is found in the territory but not in the map. Your map-viewers are passive, and hence puzzled, but our cartographers will get out their pencil and adapt the map to fit what they see.” ~ Banno

One is passive and the other is not. That was a key point in illustrating the distinction. For the purpose of the metaphor, the one who lifts up her head to spot landmarks is adapting her orientation (cognitive map) in the same way that a cartographer would. I could have made her a cartographer, but that wouldn’t change the human mechanics involved.

“There is nothing in the territory that cannot be added to the map.” ~ Banno

That is exactly what happens with the confused map reader who looks up for a landmark and adds it to her cognitive map.

“There is nothing that counts as ‘supernatural.’” ~ Banno

1. My post focused on the intelligibility of a concept such as the “supernatural.”
2. And nothing can count as “supernatural.” Where do we disagree?