Atheist Debates - Supernatural Causation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 сер 2024
- From the Atheist Debates Patreon project (tinyurl.com/prnfbx5):
Many of the claims made by apologists hinge on the ability to confirm the existence of the supernatural and that the supernatural could serve as a cause for various effects. Is there any way to do this? Aren't many theists claiming to be little God-detectors?
That was the best 'meet your burden of proof and stop with the arguments from ignorance' rundown I've heard in a loooong time. Thank you.
The more I listen to these videos, the more I am convinced that we need people like Matt to teach logic in our school system.
Of course
If ghosts or souls are ever confirmed as real things I want to know how they manage to keep their clothes on.
You could always make up some theory though. For example you don’t imagine everyone as naked
😂
Supernatural: (adj) When someone doesn't want to give demonstration for their blabbering.
aka magic.
Theists first need to provide evidence that the supernatural even exists, then they can build from there. One can't claim a supernatural SkyDaddy exists when there's never been a shred of evidence for anything outside the natural universe.
***** No we don't.We can try to convince you to be saved by Jesus ,but if you reject it you'll have to answer to God himself why you rejected him.
abelcainsbrother Accept the flying spaghetti monster! If you don't you will have to serve an eternal punishment in the pasta hell, where they cook spaghetti of you over and over! But the flying spaghetti monster is merciful, you just have to accept him as your lord an savior to receive infinite pasta! Reject him and you will have to answer the flying spaghetti monster himself!
abelcainsbrother Watch video by darkmatter25 titled The Real God: An Epiphany
It seems to me that the concept of "supernatural" is conceptually invalid. When scientists observed the acceleration of the expanding universe, they didn't go, "Woah, that's supernatural!" They went, "Here's a part of the natural universe that we don't yet understand."
If whatever is being presented as "supernatural" or "paranormal" works in a consistent, testable fashion, we can incorporate it into our scientific view of the natural universe. If it doesn't, we have no way of determining if it's even real or not.
Even theists are vague about what "supernatural" means to them. When it comes right down to it, they mean magic.
Yup. Supernatural claims are how dishonest people admit they don't know something.
Paul T Sjordal True. "Supernatural" or "God" really is a synonym for ignorance.
"I don't know how anything works, so God did it!"
-- typical creationist
I think NDT said it best...
"Science works on the frontier of knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There’s no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers."
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Paul T Sjordal ;) damn thats funny.
Shane Killian I think there is a way for it to have a reasonable meaning. Compare it to living in a computer model, where there are laws governing the model, that may not have anything to do with the outside world, and people outside the model can make things happen within the model that defy the normal rules of the model in ways that are a strict one.way causation.
I'd be fine with calling the latter supernatural, much like I'd accept ritual magic working as a demonstration of the supernatural if done properly.
_"If whatever is being presented as "supernatural" or "paranormal" works in a consistent, testable fashion, we can incorporate it into our scientific view of the natural universe. If it doesn't, we have no way of determining if it's even real or not."_
I don't think that's true. Repeatable instances of ritual magic working, but with no method of causally affecting the source of such magic, would give us pretty solid reasons for saying that the supernatural exists without being able to incorporate it into scientific models because we can't ever study the actual cause. You could of course refuse to accept such demonstrations as evidence of anything that's real and say that, praying to Mecca, dancing a rain dance or whatever, in itself cures diseases or causes rain(In addition to the normal causes such as the germ theory of disease and meteorology), but I think that would be pretty irrational if taken too far.
I don't see how it's in anyway possible to prove the existence of the supernatural. If a phenomenon can be tested, measured, demonstrated and is falsifiable, then surely it stops being supernatural, and just a new aspect to the natural for us to explore.
Exactly what I thought. The sun at one point was considered supernatural, until we came to understand what it was and how it works, and then we realised that it fitted into the natural world.
Yes, but we can see and feel the warmth of the sun which is more than any theist can say about their god.
I'd change that to read, "But we can demonstrate the warmth of the sun." They claim to feel the warmth of their god, they simply can't demonstrate it.
I consistently have a debate with my ex-girlfriend, who is a die-hard Christian (and reason we broke up), about the existence of God, or in this case, the supernatural. She has consistently claimed that she has seen and experienced God (who has literally saved her life) but she can never demonstrate it. She claims that she has personally experienced it and that other Christians have as well. I don't even know how to refute it at that point.
Scham She sounded like a lost cause.
The trend shows that whatever phenomenon we might stumble upon that seams supernatural remained a mystery until we were willing to find a natural explanation for it.
I know it's not really on topic but some of the things Matt was saying about skepticism, etc. just reminded me of something that bugs me. I'm currently a psychology student at a university and I have this one teacher who basically tries to make the point that it's bad that psychology has gotten so much more attached to emprical verification and the scientific method. For people who aren't really familiar with the field of psychology, in the past you had people like Freud (father of psychoanalysis) who were basically armchair psychologists. They didn't run any experiments and their stuff wasn't peer reviewed, etc. Whereas in the present day psychologists have to run experiments (often double-blind, etc.), have to apply statistical formulas to their findings to see if their findings are significant, have to submit their stuff to peer review and it has to be replicable. But this guy basically says that he finds this change stupid and that he thinks that many psychologists these days are too obsessed with being scientific. I mean, that's a heavily simplified version of what he says, but you know, and it just bugs me. Sorry, had to vent a little. I feel better.
Heard that lamenting point of view before. Time and again I observe that some people would rather feel comfortable than know the truth. "Oh, we have gone to far with studying brain chemistry". Sure, it would be more exciting to theorize about the unconscious than to realize that the brain is a machine
The thing that bothers me the most about that position is that it usually comes from counselling psychologists, and while most research psychology doesn't help clinical work, the same basic methodology still applies. Sure, you can't do double-blind laboratory experiments to test most aspects of clinical psychology, but you can still do large, multi-site experiments to determine what is effective in one-on-one work. And people who complain about too much science in psychology tend to ignore the important research findings that should guide clinical practice.
/rant
Ask him about Aristotle and his belief that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. That was accepted wisdom for a thousand years until Galileo tested it. The scientific method has taught us we must test our ideas against real world experiments or else we could continue to believe heavier objects fall faster.
That would bug me too.
ולמאיטךיה רעל I agree, but a this point clinical psychology is as divorced from research psychology as macro- and microeconomics. I'd love to get to the point where our understanding of whole human beings was as rigorous as our understanding of various facets of them.a
One thumb down...gman must of of been by.
Good job. This line of reasoning was essentially my rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Sir, when you're gonna upload a new video?
Jason Boreu I've got several ideas but nothing that I'm really dying to say right now. Any suggestions?
MrTweej
You could make a review of american sniper, or you can review another christian movie. dunno.
Btw have you thought about confronting a street preacher and record the encounter?
Jason Boreu I'm waiting for A Matter Of Faith and Saving Christmas to come out somewhere and I may review those. As far as confronting a street preacher, that's not really my thing. I don't even do hangouts because I prefer to organize my thoughts and I don't really like being on the spot. A lot of those seem like they're geared towards whoever yells the loudest and I'm not a yeller.
MrTweej
I understand, and i really would like to see you review those movies, your review of god's not dead was exceptional and is my favorite for this movie.
5:59 Resonated with me a lot. Perfectly worded. Great work, Matt
10:55 'As it stands right now, every time we've confirmed a cause, it's been natural.' How exactly does one confirm a supernatural cause? If an aspect of the supernatural (as defined by X culture) were confirmed and explained, wouldn't it then have to be reclassified as natural? Nuclear fission would appear supernatural to the Medieval man. If a 'god-space' truly existed in reality, is it natural or supernatural? Isn't the natural/supernatural distinction dependent on the observer's knowledge of reality? If that is the case, science can never discover the supernatural, only unveil the natural. Searching for the supernatural would be like chasing shadows.
The people who throw this term around all the time have no idea what they really mean by it. I know I don't. What does 'exists outside of or beyond nature' mean? So can we quit the pretence? I'm mean we're really just talking magic here, aren't we?
Hey, I totally asked about this on your channel page! Thank you for doing this.
Excellent video, Matt! You're one of my favorite philosophers!
Are there any specific books on this subject matter that you would recommend?
Thanks!
I've always thought that if the supernatural realm had rules, patterns, and predictable behavior, then it is actually natural, even if its set of rules is different then ours. In which case, the supernatural is actually super at all.
Nice one Matt!
This is a fantastic video! As a theist, and a UA-cam theist at that, it really gave me something to think about. I still need to wrap my head around what I understand you said, but overall I liked it! For me, I feel like I can “prove” God exists and that he does interact with the material world and that he does so in consistent and predictable patterns - but I don’t know if my lived experience, the lived experience of others, and the lived experience of still others that’s been written down and orally passed down through Scripture would satisfy that burden of proof you’re looking for.
I suppose the way I see it, is that one way in which the supernatural is known, and interacts with the natural world, is through an individuals lived experiences. I don’t know how to quantify that in such a way to present it as “material“ or “statistical“ evidence for what I believe in. But you’ve definitely challenged me to think about it. Thank you for that.
Are you still a theist? If so, what is your current stance on the claim of this video?
Thank you for uploading this one Matt. I've always defined a miracle as a phenomenon which must occur within the natural world in order to be observed, but is then attributed to a supernatural entity, which in itself is defined as something that cannot be verified or observed. Which has always made me wonder how and where the causal connection is being made to make such a claim. No one can provide any link or explain how such a manifestation could be observed when it is simultaneously being claimed to be an entity that cannot be observed. This to me has always been easy to see but so many theists are quick to call any odd or less probabilistic occurrence to be a miracle.
thanks matt, all the best
Thanks Matt, love to hear the voice of reason after my family ramble on about what god is like and what he's done etc etc. brings me back to centre.
Awesome as always
I would like to get a transcript of this video, "Supernatural Causation". Is this available?
Thank You!
If we tomorrow found out that ghosts were real and detectable by some invention they would no longer be "supernatural" as they would be defined as part of the natural world and added to our science.
So, isnt the term for a phenomenon being "supernatural" just another word for "we dont know yet" ?
Humans have invented many place-holder terms that allow them to ignore or disbelieve those aspects of reality that they find distasteful. We create many different forms of mental security blankets and language is just one tool use to do this.
youweechube That's probably my biggest objection to the concept of the supernatural.
youweechube Nope, that wouldn't happen, because that isn't actually how the word is used. See here:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
And:
freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7340
youweechube Once again, this is a not a matter of what is real and what is not -- this is how we define these terms and is an attempt to define the concept of "supernatural" out of existence, or at the very least, to assert that anything that falls into the category of "supernatural" must necessarily also fall into the category of "not physically existent."
But we've run into those kinds of definitional games on the other side. If being moral means "doing what God commands" well, then silly atheist, how can you possibly be moral if you don't believe in God? Ha, got ya!
Well, I hate to say it, but this sounds an awful lot like playing the same kind of definitional game -- trying to win an argument by simply defining the definition of "nature" as encompassing every existent thing.
Theists and those who believe in the supernatural who argue that there is a "natural" domain that consists of the orderly rule-based universe with which we are familiar and another domain of reality that is, for lack of a better term, "unconstrained" by the natural constants with which we are familiar.
Now, does the realm of the supernatural have its own "meta-rules?" Beats me. Maybe it does. But it's clear, if only from the way in which believers in the supernatural talk about it, that we are not simply talking about the discovery of dark matter or dark energy or some new aspect of the natural world.
If dry bones and rotting corpses suddenly reassembled themselves, crawled out of their graves, became whole human beings and started walking around and talking about having been to the other side and, oh, by the way, Messiah's coming -- I think that it would frankly be bordering on perverse to assert that we have really just uncovered a new principle of nature.
NMS
bpansky thanks for your link, it made good reading. I guess whether you define something as supernatural depends on the borders with which one uses the term "natural"
If we limit the term to the universe then yes id agree the supernatural is possible outside of that, I guess i was originally talking about an even broader definition of nature which encompasses the cosmos or the entirely of everything.
When I deal with people that want to say that empericism or other such things arn't the only way of knowing things, and are circular I ask them to give a replacement, show me another way that can reliably find truths. The problem with others is, they might arrive at the truth, like a ouiji board or such, but how can you know they are true without ending up using empericism or other such things.
How can anyone who listens to this, not think that it actually does make a lot of sense?
Thank you, Matt for your effort..it is very helpfull! Proof can be shown by statistics..very important..but your words are much better...it makes it more easier to understand by those who did not do a statistics study..
Such a clear presentation of the epistemological problems with super-naturalism.
7:20 - Small correction, X only needs to be sufficient or necessary, not both.
Note: To go even further, I'd suggest without sufficiency there are some logical problems to contend with, where as such isn't the case for necessity. But that's another topic.
I love Matt giving the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, of which science uses the latter, not the former. Science doesn;t actually prove anything (induction) or assert philosophical naturalism, it is an epistemic reality that science must make certain basal assumptions (axioms), but the value of science, and the "proof" it is the best tool for knowledge we currently have, is the simple observable history of science, its staggering success in describing the world, and its pragmatic utility, as demonstrated inter-subjectively to all humanity.
PS - my own main issue with the idea of supernatural causation is that it seems to be ill-defined, and usually seems to me to be synonymous with an as yet unknown natural cause(like lightning was once thought to be caused supernaturally, we then found a natural mechanism, which is the same pattern throughout the history of scientific discovery) *or* it seems to be able to be thought of as pure *randomness*, with no way to reliably predict or even attribute cause to effect.
Elijah was one of the best biblical advocates for the scientific method. When God said he would do something, Elijah made God perform a series of tests with a blanket, to prove he was capable of demonstrating truth in his claim.
Matt, how do we respond to the Plantinga God and other Minds argument? Essentially, we believe that other people have a mind which subjectively experiences things, but this concept is unfalsifiable, yet it doesn't seem irrational or unreasonable to think that this is the case. This seems to present a potentially notable exception to the idea that it's irrational to believe in things that are unfalsifiable. Thoughts?
Matt Dillahunty Regarding one of the questions near the end of your video, about why people just assume that supernatural causation is possible:
I put this down to an internal equivocation. Namely, they're conflating that which is known to be possible and that which is not known to be impossible. They're assuming that since supernatural causation is not known to be impossible (a point on which you appear to agree) that the phrase "supernatural causation for this event is possible" is reasonable, but they are either ignoring or unaware of the fact that the argument they're making (at least as you present it) relies on supernatural causation being known to be a potential cause for this event.
Yiab I think it was Tracy Harris who summarized that nicely as "Things that have not been shown to exist cannot be asserted as the cause of other things."
Abraham Van Helsing Which is false (at least within the scope of physics) as dark matter is asserted as the cause of the shape and motion of galaxies, but has not otherwise been shown to exist (many proposals exist for what the term "dark matter" might refer to, none of which have yet been verified to the best of my knowledge). This basically amounts to simply defining "dark matter" as "that which causes the shape and motion of galaxies outside of already known causes" (which therefore exists because known causes don't account entirely for the shape and motion of galaxies), but the nature and qualities of whatever the term "dark matter" refers to are largely unknown. FYI I am a layperson when it comes to physics, so please correct me if I am misinformed about this.
However this doesn't address the point I brought up, which is that there is an equivocation on the word "possible" suggested to me by what many people say in this area. Specifically, the phrase "supernatural causation is possible for X" could mean "it has been demonstrated that one way of causing X is supernatural", or it could mean "it has not been demonstrated that all causes of X are natural". While I expect that Matt agrees with the truth of the latter meaning, I can see no way that anybody can justify the truth of the former meaning, whereas the argument against which Matt is arguing seems to me to rely on the equivocation of the two meanings.
Yiab Notice that Tracie's statement uses the word "assert", meaning to *present as true*. From all I have read about the subject, physicists admit that dark matter is a *hypothesis*, not an assertion. In science, it is perfectly acceptable to hypothesize about the possible existence of things that might explain a phenomenon. Then it is up to scientists to find ways of confirming or possibly falsifying the hypothesis.
You are right that many people will justify a belief on the basis of it not having been proven impossible. It must be pointed out to them (As Matt has done on numerous occasions) that this approach could justify belief in fairies, leprechauns, Russell's Teapot, or any manner of absurdity. Hence, it is not a good way of determining what is objectively real.
Matt Dillahunty Regarding the latter bit on the hypothetical "closed-mindedness" conditions, I have to raise the possibility that we could potentially also hit conditions where proclaiming absolute falsehood of a proposition is valid simply because the proposition offers enough specificity to put forth certain necessary implications. If those implications are demonstrably false, that particular claim can be accepted as false. It isn't closed-minded even in principle to say something is absolutely false when its truth necessarily implies something (to the extent that it precludes its untruth) that we know to be untrue. It is no different from the way we reject a scientific hypothesis (e.g. Lamarckian evolution) that implies certain things that do not bear out in the data.
Example -- if someone defines "god" as merely the creator of the universe, there's nothing that can be disproved about it because there's just no content to it. On the other hand, if you claim that a literal interpretation of one of the many Sri Vaishnava shastras is true, you have a number of problems... There are no continent-sized footprints; there are no mountains that have been cleaved apart, picked up and moved somewhere else; Humans are not evolved from lions nor are there any fossils of anthropomorphic lions; There is not an 11-foot-tall 425,000-year-old man who invented the word for the color yellow still living today in Orissa; Those sorts of things pretty much say...no, this is wrong.
More nuanced might be things like mind-brain dualism... A lot of the implications of a pure dualist belief are firmly refuted within our modern understanding of neuroscience. When that was shown, however, people redefined dualism to make the material brain a sort of conduit to the immaterial mind... which makes for a proposition which fails Occam's Razor since it necessarily has no capacity to stand apart from monism in its total set of implications.
5:06
to test the luigi board:
1. blindfold all the people touching the board.
2. have an additional person write down the letters.
Matt,
Which philosopher[s] would most aptly represents the bulk of your philosophical worldview; Hume, Russell...?
My guess is Susan Haack. She developed Foundherentism, a concept Matt dropped during his debate with Sye.
The problem is, words like "supernatural" are inherently nonsensical, because they have circular or no definitions. Instead of arguing about whether something is or was caused by "the supernatural", which is a conversation that literally can't go anywhere, we SHOULD be more focussed on "did X happen". If there's no evidence, the conversation is moot regardless.
Great talk so far. Matt would you be willing to ever do a video on knowledge? Many theists say "well you can't say god doesn't exist! " as an excuse to a tentative, pragmatic, conclusion. Well you ever do a video to address that aspect?
We can't say with reliable certainty that leprechauns don't exist either. Perhaps they do somewhere at some time.
Its not about "knowing" something doesn't exist. Such a proposition would require absolute knowledge of every location at all times. Its about having no reliable evidence it does exist. In the absence of such evidence there's no good reason to assume it exists.
stiimuli yes, but what I am saying is pragmatically. We can easily say leprechauns don't exist. We don't have to be "agnostic" about it..nor is anyone
Mario Pendic thats just a matter of defining your statements. To be honest we are agnostic about leprechauns existing, but when anyone says "Leprechauns dont exist" they dont tend to be challenged by the people who believe there are leprechauns and forced to prove this statement outright.
youweechube that is true. Without although a bit of common sense. I think it if important to address because even atheists say this a lot
Excellent explanation of this claim.
About "Philosophical Naturalism" I recommend Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism".
If a supernatural event occurs it should be testable by science, because it would have to intrude into our dimension (?) I don't know if dimensionis the correct nomenclature. We just need a character to produce said event.
@Matt Dillahunty: I appreciate your videos and the extensive efforts you've put into respectfully broadening public awareness of these issues. That said, it seems to me that your word choices are sometimes a bit imprecise, even with respect to terminology that seems central to your theses. In this case, your references to "science" seem imprecise. You seem to conflate science as an epistemology (which you skirted defining at 3:57) with science as a method (e.g., 4:53: "... science is rigorous"), as a body of knowledge (which might or might not be derived from a scientific epistemology or scientific methods--e.g., 4:33: "established science"), as apparatus (5:30), etc.
Perhaps this issue deserves a video of its own. (Maybe you've made one already and I've missed it.) I think there is an important distinction between science and scientifically derived information--i.e., differences between epistemology, methods, results, and conclusions. To use "science" to refer to each step seems to muddle the term and fool some people into thinking that poor results (called "science") evince poor epistemological foundations, for example. (E.g., "Oh yeah? Well I done heard one o' them scientist types made up some o' his data! See?! That's science for ya!")
I don't find it helpful for you to suggest, e.g., that reliable Ouija board results (5:05) would "essentially just get rolled into the scientific method." Again, I think your wording could be more precise. The scientific method progresses from description to prediction to explanation. Are you suggesting that Ouija board results would be called "science" or "scientific" even without explanation or without having met the criterion of empirical falsifiability (not to mention parsimony)? (See also 5:30 for science as apparatus: "If anything could be demonstrated to consistently and reliably provide accurate and good information, it would probably get rolled in as just another tool in the science handbag.")
Given your advocacy of (empirical) falsifiability in other videos, I would be interested to hear your views on a Popperian notion of science (via Peirce)--particularly if your views differ from Popper's (at least re: the epistemology of science). As I read Popper, science is an epistemology that relies on empirical tests of empirically falsifiable claims. (Thus, I'm not sure why you talk about "truths" and proof when science is clearly limited to disproofs for generalizable claims. The only two possible answers to properly phrased scientific research questions are "maybe" and "no".) I should also say that I don't think an opponent of theism needs to justify science--however defined--as an appropriate alternative. That would merely be a false dichotomy, perhaps in support of an argument from ignorance. Even so, I often find it useful to agree on some rudimentary epistemological demarcations for these sorts of conversations. Loose terms rarely seem to help.
Thanks again for doing what you do. I look forward to much more of it--especially when you discuss issues that are not religion-/ doctrine-specific. It seems to me that the efficient argument is epistemological. (I.e., what defensible epistemologies lead to supernatural beliefs of any stripe?)
P.S. If you make a video on science as an epistemology (or on the ambiguous uses of "science"), I hope you'll cover the issues of parsimony and of the practical difficulties of establishing evidentiary cut-offs for false positives and false negatives.
I'm a philosophical naturalist, and here's the reason why.
I'm of the opinion that if we discover something "supernatural" exists, then it's no longer supernatural, it immediately becomes a previously undiscovered part of the natural world.
If you consider that lightning was once thought to be Zeus or Thor or whatever god you wish, then it was considered at that time to be of supernatural origin.
When we discovered what it actually was and the reason it occurs, it became a part of the natural world.
If for example we prove the existance of ghosts tomorrow, then it's no longer a supernatural claim, it becomes a part of our natural world that we dont fully understand.
That's a great point about fire. I've never heard anyone accuse God of starting a fire, and I think even the most fervent believer would see the irrationality of saying that God must have started any fire for which the cause isn't known. If you ask "How do you determine which fires were started by God?", I would be surprised if they said "Any fire which we don't know the cause of was started by God." And yet this is the logic we hear for miracle claims, such as "miraculous healing", or something mundane like finding your car keys etc.
If forest fires were considered a good thing, and if people frequently prayed for forest fires, I wonder how many claims we'd hear about "miraculous forest fires"?
I read ‘Supernatural Caucasian’ as the title and thought, ‘there goes Matt identifying the problem again’. Then I had a coffee and re-read the title. XD
Won't the "super" natural become just natural if we discover a way "see" it and study it?
Here's a scientific study that was recently published, which I think can serve well as an example of search for extreme causation:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615142841.htm
The article states that there's "a highly significant correlation between periodic solar storms and incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and giant cell arteritis (GCA), two potentially debilitating autoimmune diseases."
That sounds like a nearly-impossible connection.
In fact, the ScienceDaily article goes on to state: "The findings ... could lead to preventive measures if a causal link can be established."
I like to think that its impossible for something supernatural to exist, just because we cant explain something doesnt make it supernatural and even if someone proved the existance of a god, i would claim that its totally natural for him to exist. How would you go about proving something to be supernatural anyway?
I like this guy so clear and to the point
What is supernatural? It appears to me that it is just a word that authors of fictional stories us to differentiate the part of their world that matches ours vs. the part that is fictional (for example, in Game of Thrones, knights = natural, dragons = supernatural).
Our definition of natural is constantly changing, once the concept of curved space-time would have sounded totally unreal, now it is part of our understanding of nature. Even if we discover something outside of space-time, wouldn't it be more reasonable to update the definition of nature, rather than use a label that is currently synonymous with fiction.
The word for supernatural phenomena which have been revealed is "nature." As Matt mentioned, lightning was once ascribed to supernatural causes, as were earthquakes and disease. The supernatural world is nicely described by the world "occult" which means nothing more than "hidden." Things that are presented as "supernatural" are only things that are natural which we have not yet explained. The only reason I say that there is nothing "supernatural" is because I believe that supernatural is simply another word for ignorance. It's a negative, the absence of understanding. As such, I don't consider it in the least arrogant to assert that an absence does not exist. There is no supernatural. There is only ignorance.
At 5:00 to 5:07 Mat says “The time to believe in a new way of knowing is after it has been demonstrated to work” the problem is Mat if everyone thought like that then no “New ways” or “New” thoughts or new anything would ever be done because for someone somewhere everything all started as nothing more then an idea. Before anyone could demonstrate that any idea like human flight for example is possible they first had to believe and have “Faith”(or confidence) that they could in fact make their idea real. Remember at the time the only thing the Wright brothers had to go on to convince them that they could fly was nothing more then an idea, thought and dream in their minds that they imagined and dreamed could be. In fact all the known evidence at the time seemed to say that human flight was impossible or improbable at the very least.
The same can be said about Tesla with his break through discovery of AC power. If everyone thought like Mat is suggesting here then Westing House would not have taken the risk to give Tesla an Opportunity and chance to prove his theory about electricity correct. Especially considering how Thomas Edison(The recognizances for-most expert in Electro Dynamics in the world at the time) was dead set against it. Edison had demonstrated that he knew what he was talking about when it came to Electricity, while Tesla was still new and largely unknown. So by the logic and Rational that Mat is endorsing here everyone should have listened to Edison and ignored Tesla.
You would be right... if I had said "the time to experiment is after the idea has been demonstrated". But I didn't say that and you sound ridiculous.
They time to believe that something IS true is after it has been demonstrated. Period.
@@SansDeity Ok Mat Thankyou for taking the time to respond to me and clear that issue up. You would be correct in your response to me however it seems you are failing to consider a little thing called attitude. That is to say that none of these great people throughout history that accomplished and did the amazing things they did would not have even attempted(experimented)to unless they first believed that they could or it could be done. That is the positive attitude that is necessary to accomplish the great things they did. They had to first “Believe” that they could!
If we confirm the supernatural doesn't that make it just another part of the natural world?
Correct. That which exists is natural. If it is outside nature, then it does not exist. Anything known as "supernatural", by definition, does not exist.
77gravity your naturalism is unsupported with reason.
MoonwalkerWorshiper What is your defined sense of the word supernatural? What belongs in this category, what belongs in the natural category, remember to not be arbitrary.
Supernatural = woo woo bullshit
Here in a one liner version of what people have pointed out: Detecting the supernatural means that it was merely an undiscovered natural.
the proponents of new age woo and pseudoscience also say that the standards of science are too high. Do religious people also believe in crystal healing, psychics, tarot cards? no. That's special pleading to correctly discount woo, but not your own religious beliefs.
it bugs me when people say they prayed over someone and they got healed of cancer or whatever. when you consider how many tens of thousands die from these diseases, you have to tell me that either A. no one prayed for them. B. they didnt pray as hard as you would have or C. god chose not to heal them for some reason. i find it hard to celebrate people getting healed if we are banking it on such factors. remember polio? did everyone suddenly start praying for polio at the exact time they began administering the vaccine? please
Loving the video series Matt Dillahunty
Hey guys. Elsewhere on the intertubes, I'm in a conversation (although I've pretty much walked away from it) with a christian. S/he has said they tried Roman Catholicism, it didn't feel right (their words), went Anglican. In the conversation, they have said they "know God exists", they have said you can test using reason, evidence, science and logic different denominations of religion, but not religion itself (don't ask), they've also now recently said that they know and acknowledge that there is no basis in fact for religion (I'm taking that person's words here verbatim)
Despite all that, this person still holds fast to their belief. Am I right in taking this person to be a lost cause?
This is clearly a case where you need to get down to the person's desires, rather than reasoning. Why do they follow a religion? What do they mean when they say they "know" God exists? Why do they say that their religion is true (if they even say that at all)?
Wherever possible, try to find where your desires overlap, and move forward from there. Be mindful of places where desires will split, and explain yourself clearly.
I think some people (maybe not your friend, but possibly) would rather live with the hope of an amazing afterlife rather than thinking there is eternal nothingness for them after death. In many societies we are bombarded with the former, so to have this idea and take it away is very hard for some people and maybe theyve come to the point that theyd rather live in happy ignorance - maybe even just at a sub concious level.
I personally believe it's sorta pointless to discuss the supernatural because all of our tools and all of our methods rely on the natural world so even if lets say the supernatural existed we'd either have to be granted with a supernatural event that happened to translate into the natural world from which we could trace back and discover the tools to find it or we'd have to create a device that could track the supernatural and we'd have to hope the device worked.
From my own limited knowledge, and of course my own personal thinking.
The universe must follow a set of given rules, we just have not placed all the blocks in the right place to understand the method. Its like a jigsaw, we can see the pieces which fit together, we just havent worked out the order of those.
But its all energy, i think if you follow it back in time, all you will discover is what we already know, its still energy, its still there and its still doing what energy does. The rules dont change, they remain constant, therefore the universe does NOT begin or end, its simply what is now, what was before was less complex, and what will be will be more complex.
Energy does not need a creator, energy has no will, no desires, no emotion, just ability in the right conditions to do what energy does - but it is able to become sentient, i will base this science on two facts, we are made from the same rules the universe is, using a long chain of events based on those same rules, we today are sentient. Therefore as we exist as sentient beings, that energy is able.
BUT its not a god, it has no desires, no need, no supernatural ability, and we are not a single unit, we are a mass of life, limited to our host planet. Each unique with our own wants.needs and desires which we create for ourselves.
Which leads to my conclusion: The universe is not god, the energy is not a god. We are not gods, the universe has no will, from what we observe and can see, the universes version of sentience is not united, instead its fragmented and fragile. A delicate yet wounderous thing, but with no more design than the pattern of leaves blown from a tree. I predict with no desire, sentinence will continue, but it will remain fragmented, there is no reason to assume otherwise.
So ive got my own science idea that should pass peer review :D
It all comes down to many levels of EVOLUTION. The cave man would have NEVER believe that a motorized car would help him get around, and here we are. Some where in past that cave man had to consider that as a possibility otherwise we would not have cars and we would have more cavemen and cavewomen.
is there only one reality [includes universe, gods, angels, hell, heaven, demons, us, stars] or two: nature and supernature [two natures or realities] or natural laws/modus vivendi and supernatural laws/modus vivendi?
priests and believers recognize two reaIities and the rest of us only one reality or all-there-is.
The number scientists and academics and innovators and the like is limited. The Economic principle of Opportunity Costs come into play with regards to the use of their time.
I just say there's no reason to believe there is a magic parallel universe, can you show me why I should?
Most of us in this comment section would agree. We don't believe in magic either. What's your point?
The concept of the supernatural is just an argument from incredulity. It is the statement that something that is, or happened, cannot be explained by the natural, therefore it must be supernatural.
Even if you don't want to admit it, anything that exists in reality is, by definition, natural. Anything called supernatural is, by definition, either natural, but not understood, or it does not exist in this reality.
All things that were once not understood, and called supernatural, have been shown to be one of those two options, as expected.
Science is not unable to study the supernatural, lightning, rainbows, etc were studied scientifically and are now understood. What science can't study is things that don't exist.
Isn't that just agnosticism? (Semantics, I know, but accurate labels can be useful sometimes)
Surely, if we could establish causation by, or the existence of, a claimed supernatural agent, then the very process of observing and confirming it brings it into the natural realm, and we would adjust our understanding of the natural world to take account of the new data. Hence, by definition, we can't confirm a supernatural claim, just discover a new, natural phenomena?
aido92 But that's not how the words work:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
bpansky I think you have it back to front. I'm not classifying the supernatural as untestable (what Carrier is rebutting); I'm saying that the moment we establish causation or existence in any meaningful way, then that makes it testable, and, therefore, part of the natural world, and no longer supernatural, by definition.
aido92
Carrier is also talking about definition (it's even in the title of the article, and in the opening paragraph too, and all throughout the article). If you read the article you'd know he pointed out that you could test supernatural things yet they would still fit the definition of "supernatural".
bpansky Sorry, can't state it any more simply for you! If you can't understand the difference, then too bad. Looking through the threads on this clip, you, apparently, think you're some kind of expert on the subject, but you really don't seem to grasp it at all.
aido92
You can't state it any more simply than to falsely claim the article isn't about definition when it obviously is about definition?
Projection is often a BIG problem with most theist's talking points, like the supposed closed mindedness of atheists when it comes to the supernatural.
Ask yourself this: How open-minded are theists when it comes to explaining "supernatural experiences" with well-known scientific or neuro-psychological phenomena, i.e. optical illusions or hallucinations? Not so much, right? But they are twisting their close-mindedness to a lack of open-mindedness on the side of whoever disagree's with them, i.e. Atheists, Scientists etc. It is more sophistiated and it leads to better results to explain a supposed unknown or new phenomenon using something we already know, instead of merely sticking a label to it like "supernatural" and say "that's the explanation". No, it's not an explanation, because it doesn't explain anything, but some people get away with it by appending "that's the explanation" at the end of their sentence and expect everyone to go ... D'uh!.
I personally believe that many religious (or "spiritual") people have either actively developed or passively, through indoctrination, a sort of "exceptions list" when it comes to religious claims or personal experiences. I am convinced that, if you took popular stories of people with "supernatural experiences" and literally swapped out certain terms, i.e. exchange "Jesus" for "Aliens" or so, then present those stories back to the religious audience, you will see that those people ARE VERY WELL CAPABLE of doing some logic and reasoning, unlike what many atheists may or may not think, in the sense of being rather sceptical about them. So it's not that those people can't logic or are less intelligent, but let's say they use their intellect very "selectively", be it concious or subconcious. This is what I ment by "exceptions list". When you re-tell the same story and swap-back the "Jesus" for "Aliens" all the sudden you don't see the same logic and reason applied. It's kinda equivalent to the special pleading fallacy. Anyhow...
In the Atheist Experience, when callers invoke the supernatural, Matt often says something along the lines of "we *tend* to explain things with things that we know (instead of appealing to a greater mystery)". I don't quiet understand why he is so defensive with this statement. "*Tend*" is IMHO too weak, because I would argue it is impossible to explain anything with invoking something we don't understand. At least when we're actually trying to explain it (and not just word-playing with appending "that's the explanation" to it). However, Matt is usually quiet conservative with his formulations, so I would find it interesting to hear *why* he choses the weaker "*tend*" formulation, instead of saying it's impossible to explain something with something we don't understand.
ua-cam.com/video/T69TOuqaqXI/v-deo.html
Paul T Sjordal This video is so well made and so true. It's like the summary of 100 debates in one generalized, visually guided presentation about the same old argumentation patterns. Thanks.
***** Do check out his other videos. They're amazing.
Paul T Sjordal Already subscribed to it. But unfortunatelly, just like with ua-cam.com/users/Evid3nc3 for example, it too apparently stopped activity since a while now. No new video since years.
***** Yeah, the best ones put out videos infrequently and often stop altogether, I suspect because information-dense videos of good quality take a lot more effort to produce.
Awesome work as usual, although I must express this usual pet peeve of mine that I disagree with your - sadly contagious yet no less erroneous - allegation of a dichotomy between philosophical naturalism, and methodological naturalism.
Methodological Naturalism _is_ Philosophical Naturalism, more specifically one of its two basic components. There are many versions and expansions on Philosophical Naturalism, none of them ever dissociate _Ontological_ Naturalism (the component you nonsensically regard as "philosophical") with Methodological Naturalism (which is simply Naturalism's epistemic component).
Enjoy your pet peeve. I completely disagree and your distinction is not useful.
Philosophical naturalism holds that only the natural exists. That's not epistemically sound... which is why you want to label it the ontological aspect of mere naturalism. Methodical naturalism holds that the natural is all we can currently explore.. which is why you want to label it epistemic.
A distinction with no useful difference.
Why bother? "Supernatural" pretty much just means something is claimed without any explanation, and without any possibility of investigation. It is entirely meaningless as a concept, and it is so by design (I think the ignostic position covers this well enough).
Which is why we might simply insist on a natural definition of god before anyone can even begin to prove it. After all, what is "supernatural" used for? To accept that something is absolutely impossible, and yet maintain that it is true in this case. It's an outright admission that their idea hinges on special pleading. I think that's grounds enough to dismiss such claims outright.
Of course, that's assuming someone doesn't have a more meaningful definition of "supernatural".
Exactly, and if it is indeed testable and falsifiable, then it is just natural.
Heavybane Wrong, see here:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
And here:
freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7340
Not disagreeing about the existence of god, but I just don't agree that you need to prove something exists before citing that as the cause of something. Especially when the effects to which something is the cause is the proof of the things existence.
Gravitational waves, for example.
But I think the things theists are missing is predictive power. If they could state "if A, then god" as a prediction, then reliably produce effect A as predicted and explained exclusively by God, then that would be evidence.
3:31 "Science, so far as we can tell, is the single most demonstrably reliable pathway to discovering truths about the natural world that we inhabit"
Saul: "Who art thou"
The being that appeared before Saul: "I am Jesus whom you persecute."
Saul: "Well, that's good enough for me." lol
There appears to be a flaw in their reasoning and critical thinking skills.
The natural and supernatural is divided by the level of knowledge of the individual. Don't forget, the stars were once supernatural too.
i dont think that saying that all there is a bad thing; it IS just the natural world, because if there was something that we could potentially call "supernatural" it would just be misscagderized natural phononmea...
we have to come up with a better definition of what constitutes as "supernatural events" other than "its not explainable by science"
ok... but thats kinda a bad definition... its saying what its not... not what it is... and when we are talking about *labels* saying what something is NOT is perfectly fine, but when we are describing a phenomenon; saying what its NOT is useless information...
Person A "a supernatural god exists"
Person B "Define "supernatural" plz"
person A "of an event or events not explainable by natural rules of reality"
Person B "that does not tell me what it is to then go on to apply a criteria to a "god" so that i can conclude that something like that is a coherent concept at the very min"
and if Person A gave an acceptable definition with a acceptable criteria... how can we not simply amalgamate that with nature....
anytime we have a coherent concept of the rules of reality, that BECOMES the new rules of reality... if we were to prove the existence of parallel worlds, Phenomena that happen in these worlds that do not happen in ours would then be classed as "supernatural" because they are beyond the natural world..... but in reality,, they are still natural because we have just updated our understanding of reality...even if we don't understand it, we know it can happen in 1 realm, but not the other, that is therefore a form of evidence that its natural and that we can examine why there are different rules.
misscagderized?
stiimuli
it was kinda an easy word to realize what i meant
-- miscategorized
Ziliath Other thinkers are way ahead of you:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
bpansky
after reading the link, i think the guy whom wrote it could just replace his idea of "supernatural" and simply call it "preternatural" and leave the word "supernatural" for things that are in fantasy stories. and keep "Unexplained events in reality" as "Preternatural" and "unexplained Events in Fiction" As "supernatural"
Ziliath
He already talked about how to handle unexplained events.
Exactly.
Their standards are too low, so low that anything can be put in their explanations place.
I’ll have to re-watch this, and think on it, but it seems like your logic concluded to there being nothing supernatural. Merely occurrences that we have not yet found an explanation for. Maybe I’m wrong here, but if there were a mechanism to explore the supernatural, then it would no longer be supernatural.
I'm ok with this line of reasoning. What's not ok, is to be disingenuous. If someone says they are interested in exploring someone's evidence for the supernatural and then fails to adequately do so because of their pre conceived notions about the evidence presented , that is not cool.
Let's say you can turn water in wine and you know how it works. What is Supernatural
about it?
DracoAdrian23 See here:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
For me, prayer studies would be sufficient. If Christian prayer really altered probability, but only if you're a Southern Baptist. Or if Muslim prayers did work, but only if you were a member of the Alawite sect. Or maybe some Hindu prayers work, but only if you are praying to the monkey God Hanuman. An entity that could read minds and alter probability and physics on-demand for people with the correct doctrine would be indistinguishable from a God for all practical purposes. Of course, That's exactly what does not happen.
uncleanunicorn Even if prayer studies worked for one we'd have to define "worked". Like if someone prayed for a bike and happened to have a bike brought to their door the next day, like that worked? I find that at best even if a prayer study "worked" we could always argue that maybe a self fulfilling prophecy happened where the person maybe unconsciously made decisions that lead them to it coming true or we could simply say that improbable things happen which could work.
And there is a reason we choose to be ignorant of our own reality. To suspend our disbelief A movie is so much more enjoyable when you BELIEVE it is really happening. Life would not be enjoyable if we knew it was just a dream. But instead we EXPERIENCE smells and tastes and colours and touches and accomplishments.
One objection I have to the first cause argument is the fact we have no evidence the universe was ever in a state of true nothingness. Another one is the entire argument is based on a falsehood.
Its true that we can't substantiate a supernatural claim by using science. However, the way that a supernatural claim could actually be substantiated with the help of science is if a logical argument could be made which reaches a conclusion of the existence of the supernatural, and if the premises of that argument are supported by scientific evidence. This seems to be the only way to actually demonstrate the existence of the supernatural.
Red Ace But you just described every conclusion that can be substantiated by science.
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
bpansky
I look at that link and I'm sure it has nothing to do with what I meant by what I said. Or maybe I don't understand what you're getting at with that article...
What I said is, if you can use premises which are well supported and accepted in science, and you can then make a logical argument that comes to the conclusion that something supernatural exists, then that would be a reasonable way to demonstrate the existence of the existence of supernatural. For example, if you used the premise "gravity exists", that is a premise that is well supported by science. If all the premises of the argument were well supported by science, like the gravity example, then you could reach logical conclusions which are well substantiated.
Red Ace
Agreed.
I have PROOF of the Supernatural! I have every season on DVD (that are available)! That proves it's real! Long live Sam and Dean! ;-) Excellent series on debate. Thank you for introducing debaters I have not yet heard from, good resource for other POVs.
personal experiences and feelings, as arguments for causation, are 'inner' subjective constructs irrelevant to common externally perceived reality otherwise all religious claims from all contradicting religions, not just from the 'biblical universe', would have to be accepted as 'evidence'.
My biggest problem with claims of the supernatural is that most definitions of "natural" by people who assert that there's such a thing as the supernatural come very close, so far as I can see, to being synonymous to "reality" -- and that what they are really saying when they talk about the supernatural are things that somehow are "real" yet lack all of the central defining qualities of real things.
"Minds" are supposedly centers of awareness in the absence of brains or sensory apparatus.
Spirits are beings in the absence of bodies.
Miracles are physical events in the absence of physical causation.
They propose entities that are neither matter nor energy, that have no presence within space and that are timeless. Thus they have neither location, nor duration, nor have any effect upon matter, nor, since they are not matter, not energy, do not interact in any detectable way with either.
But meanwhile, prayers are answered, and the sick are healed, and seas part, and the dead rise and immaterial beings communicate and interact with physical beings -- namely us -- in any number of different ways.
Before anyone can evaluate whether a given thing or category of things can exist, you first have to figure out whether the claim itself is coherent and I've yet to hear a coherent description of "supernatural" that isn't simply a collection of things -- like magic and ghosts and werewolves and elves and other things -- where the only thing that they have in common is that they're all imaginary, make-believe, or mythological things that don't exist.
NMS
prodprod Here you go:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
He has also written on the possibility (but not proven logical necessity) that the supernatural is impossible:
freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/510
And here:
freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7340
1 Thes. 5:21 "Test all things and hold fast to what is good" - Scientific enough?
I've given this a lot of thought. Religionists ask the atheist, "What would you take as good evidence?". Well, there's no answer that could just prove it all at once but the Bible itself describes an experiment to demonstrate God. Know the story of Elijah? So he meets the 450 priests of Baal and says "Get a sacrifice pyre and a bull but don't light any fires. I'll do the same. Whoever can light the fire through prayer alone wins." What if we could do that today and consistently light a fire just by praying over it. That sure would be something. We could at least start investigating. Trying it with different denominations and whatnot. Something like that I think could convince me of the Biblical God depending on the results. What do you think?
.. and historical scientists were challenged to explain it, which they did with lime-rich rocks and naphtha, if I remember correctly. It was a trick, if it was true at all.
***** I always suspected the naphtha thing although I'm not really sure it happened at all.
Paul TheSkeptic I can't find the source where I first saw it unfortunately. It was something like "Bible miracles explained" or a variant.
And yes, given the Creation, the Exodus, The Flood, and The Conquest of Canaan being demonstrably "just stories," I err on the side of scepticism as regards this story too.
***** So we're agreed there. What about the "experiment"? If things like that could be consistently done, would that convince you of the God of the Bible? I mean, it would at least be a starting point. We could then start to test who can do it and what else they can do, does it matter what you believe theologically etc. As it is, it's really a non starter. We have no data. It's nice to have _something_ to tell the theist who ask that question but it's also not completely satisfying.
Paul TheSkeptic Do you think time travel is possible or impossible?
An actual prophecy with clarity if time travel's *not possible* would be a good start.
After hearing such sound arguments im everytime like "well thats it, noone could possibly not understand this, explained like that". Meanwhile in reality: Theists would watch the whole video saying he just needs to have faith and thats it, whole argument rejected.
Edit: Well im not sure if they would even watch this (might cost to much time), but lets just assume they would somehow even try to understand.
I'm a theist, I watched this, and all I hear from Dillahunty constantly is "demonstration, demonstration, demonstration".
Demonstrate what in what context? What standards of evidence are acceptable? What does he mean with demonstration? What is the criteria of valid evidence and valid demonstration?
All these words flying around without being defined. Not even "supernatural" was defined here.
What am I supposed to be convinced about? That because an atheist says "demonstrate it to me" a thousand times, I'm supposed to know that supernatural causation cannot happen/will not happen/would not happen etc?
At 11:37, Dillahunty says something about standards of evidence, and that's the only time I've ever heard him address it. All he says it's nothing wrong with standards of evidence being high.
I'm not complaining about "high standards", I'm complaining about type of standard.
*Abstract objects do not require to be tested to be known.* Get it, for the love of GOD.
MoonwalkerWorshiper, I'm confused. Are you saying that God is an abstract object?
Hey if a burning bush says it's God, that's good enough for me.
Every burning bush I have ever talked to has always been honest and forthcoming. They always have told me the truth, I have no reason to doubt them. lol
Moses' line of reasoning?
Matt Dillahunty
By definition (and correct me if I'm wrong), if a "supernatural" phenomenon was real, it could be scientifically studied.
That means observations could be carried out, predictions would be made, papers could be written and peer-reviewed, and all this could be repeated.
But then, if they were (I'll even be so generous as to allow a "If they have been..." / "if they are being ...", even though it's never been the case) studied in that manner, and if _any_ such phenomenon was proved to be true, what exactly would make it supernatural? It would just become another partof known science, and therefore of nature as we know it.
No, really, a *supernatural* phenomenon is *by definition* impossible _per se_. People who insist that they exist also necessarily say that those cannot be scientifically proven.
Therefore.- and it is funny enough - *if they say that **_they're real_*, they're saying that they're *_not_** real*.
(and I mean that this is the only conclusion you get if you claim that supernatural phenomena are true and subject to material, scientific study and inquiry. If they want to say that they cannot be studied and they are just strange and spooky and unpredictable and woooOOOooo!, then OK, let them. They're wrong, but who cares?)
SolDeSaBelle You should probably re-watch the video. What's being discussed here isn't a supernatural phenomenon, but a (proposed) supernatural thing causes a natural phenomenon. I'm unaware of anyone who claims that supernatural phenomenon exist or are detectable.
Except maybe all theists? I've heard countless people say that the supernatural "exists" and "cannot be disproved, so there!", and the like. You can't seriously say that "no-one" claims it exists. Even though it doesn't. Unless you mean no-one in _this_ particular video. My point was addressing people who do say the supernatural exists: woo-enthusiasts, new-age wack-jobs, Christians of all ilks, and religious people in general - this list is clearly not exhaustive, nor can it be. There are billions of people who believe in the supernatural and profess to do so.
Hm… I would have started with talking about the problems with the definition of "nature".
o_O Yep, very important. And here it is:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
Well, time *as we currently know it* began at the Big Bang, I'm not sure that time or the universe as a whole did.
Indeed, many models of multiverse hypothesis include a "metatime" that is arrowless(like space in our universe) and that transcends the time we experience in our observable universe. And thats just one type of hypothesis of cosmological origins. There are many more ideas out there, and right now, as I understand it, *none8 are empirically justified as yet, and are all speculative.
Or it could be the case that the universe could have always existed in one form or another. None are empirically justified, but I don't think I could make the leap that the universe or time as a whole began at the BB either. I just don't know.
Bert Simmons Which is an honest answer, even if you find one speculative model more convincing than any other, the truth is we don't know. Try telling that to a creationist or apologist, though...*sigh*
munstrumridcully
I have tried it with InspiringPhilosophy before, but all he ever did in response was link me one of his videos... Forget that.
Bert Simmons A fair observation. It's when people start asserting they KNOW that yada yada can't happen when they can't even demonstrate that is usually when people's argument's fall apart. Simply saying "I'm not sure." is waaaaayyy more honest an answer than inventing a conclusion just so you have one.
What happens if the universe is a brain or mind?
What happens if the universe is cottage cheese?
What happens if the universe is cottage cheese?
No seriously
+David Heller
What happens if xylophone zebra fifty-six?
+David Heller I think you can tell we are not taking your question very seriously.
Here is why I don't think it is a reasonable question.
Every mind we know of requires a brain. You posit a mind without a brain and it seems to be an unneeded one. We don't have any indication that such a mind is present, it does not communicate or act in any way to influence the universe or out lives.
Therefore it seems the type of question one might ask after inhaling the combustion products of certain plants. A question equal in quality to "what if the universe is cottage cheese" or a xylophone.
Had a thought; if we "confirm" the supernatural, wouldn't it become part of the "natural"?
John Stover It would still be supernatural:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
bpansky I would argue that, but there's not much point.
It's like "Expect the unexpected:....
if you expect it, then it's no longer unexpected. (kudos to George Carlin)
John Stover
Right, there usually isn't much point arguing the definitions of words. But if you don't use the same definition as everyone else, they will rightly dismiss your post here as being completely irrelevant to what they believe.
@@bpansky no it wouldn’t.
@@parametalhead why not? Have you checked out the link I shared?
how can what's natural; ie, real, understand what's unreal; ie. nothing or supernatural?
shouLd we be splitting nature [or ALL-THAT-EXISTS] into two entities: real and unreal or into two separate realities.
if there is a supernature, a natural person like a priest or me cannot ever experience it; we can only experience so-called supernatural reality if its also integral part of ALL THERE IS!
to be quite short and to the point: there is only one ALL-THAT-EXISTS and not two.
MyBozhidar That's not how the words work, read this:
richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
I can never remember most people's names especially surnames. So I Always think of Matt as Humpty Dumpty.
This may be a little nit picky. I think a problem is when people say science shows truths or that science can prove something to be true. Although I agree with most of your video this is really the only problem I have. Science has demonstrated over and over again how nature works but there is still the question of why it works the way it does. It is that question of why that theism still exists. I do reject faith based answers to this but I also think that science has a limitation to this why question as well.
How is the explanation of the observations and evidence. For example we know how natural selection works, what its mechanisms are in relation to nature. However we do not know what its meaning is that is the why part. Evolution was just an example. If I were to ask you how fire works you could give me a good explanation but could u tell me the meaning of fire.
I am right in asserting that you believe that we are just a product from how the universe works?
You have made an assumption and a very wrong one. I am an atheist who accepts science as the only way to try and explain how nature works. At no time did I dispute the science or the theories within it. At no time did I even suggest a mystic answer. That assumption came so easy for you. I wonder how often such assumptions are made over the decades. If you made assumptions like that in your science that would be cause for concern.
TheLayman "why it works the way it does" - Im not even sure thats a valid question, what other way could it work ?
TheLayman _we do not know what its meaning is that is the why part_
You are assuming that there *is* a "why part". What is the basis of your thinking a "why" exists?
ok you guys.. When I asked some theists about how they could KNOW anything without evidence and to give me ONE instance of knowing something to be true without the use of any empirical evidence at all.. they said math.
Now, I babbled some shit, but I wasn't very happy about it.
What can anyone tell me about this?
I would say that you did ask a bad question. There are things we can know without evidence, such as a priori arguments (no two parallel lines can intersect, mathematical absolutes). However, a god is not a priori logic, especially since many people have different definitions of god.
ozzy9691 "
I would say that you did ask a bad question."
- darn.
But I do have my objections to why math isn't in the same category as god....
The things that are a priori in math are ONLY in the context OF math. Right?
Like Logic can't prove Logic, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems...
and that MATH is very much like a language that DESCRIBES and is not something that can exist like a thing or a being?
and I also mentioned that philosophers are in disagreement as to what math is, precisely, and that therefore, it's not a good example at all of something that we KNOW because we can't even AGREE what it IS....
what do you think?
Math is language that we use,"mathematical definitions were chosen by humans to model physical reality so that we could make useful predictions, not to encapsulate metaphysical truth, so really, why should we expect math to be true?" So we use math to describe the real world 'like 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples' etc. Take the apples out and you have math. The natural world shows that math works. It is used to describe asking if it were true doesn't make sense. Asking if it works would be better. and we have evidence it does.
Prepare yourself better.
Mathematics is an abstraction. Until you compare mathematical constructs to reality, they're about as useful as castles in the air. You should have asked how they can know something to be true or accurate _about reality_ without empirical evidence.
Richardj Thanks.. This is helpful.
I was trying to explain that math wasnt in the same category as a thing or a being.. that it was more like a language ...
The way you are putting it is better.. and I can promise you way SHORTER...
I didn't get any reply from the theists yet.. and I don't really expect any. But there's going to be a next time... I can't be an expert on everything..
eye Got WIttness's evidence of communicateing with Real Spirits around other on here REcorded FREE
But reality itself must ultimatly be non-causal. No matter how far you go back (big bang, what ever you like), causality must fall apart at some point. Causality only becomes (apparently) real after spacetime and matter are "created" or "appear" without a cause. What you are calling "the natural world"; the fact existence itself "is"... is bananas :) and irrational :) and non-causal :) and non-dual :)
science is only useful once reality has inexplicably appeared (and is great inside of reality!). But it is not, and doesn't even attempt to be, an explanation for existence itself